Skip header and navigation

3 records – page 1 of 1.

Influence of self-efficacy on compliance to workplace exercise.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature124113
Source
Int J Behav Med. 2013 Sep;20(3):365-70
Publication Type
Article
Date
Sep-2013
Author
Mette Merete Pedersen
Mette Kreutzfeldt Zebis
Henning Langberg
Otto Melchior Poulsen
Ole Steen Mortensen
Jette Nygaard Jensen
Gisela Sjøgaard
Thomas Bredahl
Lars Louis Andersen
Author Affiliation
National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Lersø Parkallè 105, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark, mettemerete@gmail.com.
Source
Int J Behav Med. 2013 Sep;20(3):365-70
Date
Sep-2013
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Compliance
Denmark
Exercise
Exercise Therapy - methods - psychology
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Motor Activity
Muscle, Skeletal - physiology
Neck Pain - physiopathology - psychology - rehabilitation
Patient Compliance - psychology
Prospective Studies
Self Efficacy
Shoulder Pain - physiopathology - psychology - rehabilitation
Treatment Outcome
Workplace
Abstract
Continuous neck and shoulder pain is a common musculoskeletal complaint. Physical exercise can reduce pain symptoms, but compliance to exercise is a challenge. Exercise-specific self-efficacy has been found to be a predictor of participation in preplanned exercise. Little is known about the influence of exercise-specific self-efficacy on compliance to workplace physical exercise.
To determine the influence of exercise-specific self-efficacy on compliance to specific strength exercises during working hours for laboratory technicians.
We performed a cluster-randomized controlled trial, including laboratory technicians from two industrial production units in Copenhagen, Denmark. The participants were randomized to supervised specific strength exercises for the neck and shoulder muscles for 20 minutes three times a week (n?=?282) or to a reference group (n?=?255). The participants answered baseline and follow-up questions regarding self-efficacy and registered all exercises in a diary.
Overall compliance to exercises was 45 %. Compliance in company A (private sector) differed significantly between the three self-efficacy groups after 20 weeks. The odds ratio of compliance was 2.37 for moderate versus low self-efficacy, and 2.93 for high versus low self-efficacy. No significant difference was found in company B (public sector) or in the intervention group as a whole.
We did not find self-efficacy to be a general statistically significant predictor of compliance to exercises during 20 weeks, but found self-efficacy to be a predictor of compliance in a private sector setting. Workplace-specific differences might be present and should be taken into account.
Notes
Cites: Ann Behav Med. 2002 Spring;24(2):149-5612054320
Cites: Am J Prev Med. 2002 Aug;23(2 Suppl):80-612133741
Cites: Health Psychol. 2002 Sep;21(5):459-6712211513
Cites: JAMA. 2003 May 21;289(19):2509-1612759322
Cites: BMJ. 2003 Aug 30;327(7413):47512946968
Cites: Prev Med. 2003 Dec;37(6 Pt 1):635-4514636797
Cites: Prev Med. 2004 May;38(5):628-3615066366
Cites: Health Educ Behav. 2004 Apr;31(2):143-6415090118
Cites: Psychol Rev. 1977 Mar;84(2):191-215847061
Cites: Prev Med. 1986 Jul;15(4):331-413763558
Cites: Soc Sci Med. 1992 Jan;34(1):25-321738853
Cites: Res Q Exerc Sport. 1992 Mar;63(1):60-61574662
Cites: J Behav Med. 1992 Feb;15(1):65-881583674
Cites: J Behav Med. 1993 Feb;16(1):103-138433355
Cites: Prev Med. 1994 Jul;23(4):498-5067971878
Cites: Ann Rheum Dis. 2005 Jan;64(1):118-2315608309
Cites: Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006 Dec;38(12):2068-7417146312
Cites: Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2007 Jun;21(3):447-6317602993
Cites: Arthritis Rheum. 2008 Jan 15;59(1):84-9118163419
Cites: Scand J Work Environ Health. 2008 Feb;34(1):55-6518427699
Cites: Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008 Jun;40(6):983-9018461010
Cites: J Phys Act Health. 2008 May;5(3):418-2918579919
Cites: J Occup Health Psychol. 2008 Oct;13(4):371-8018837631
Cites: Health Promot Pract. 2010 Jan;11(1):71-818540005
Cites: BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:20521936939
PubMed ID
22622819 View in PubMed
Less detail

Supervised progressive cross-continuum strength training compared with usual care in older medical patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (the STAND-Cph trial).

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature278942
Source
Trials. 2016 Apr 01;17:176
Publication Type
Article
Date
Apr-01-2016
Author
Mette Merete Pedersen
Janne Petersen
Nina Beyer
Lars Damkjær
Thomas Bandholm
Source
Trials. 2016 Apr 01;17:176
Date
Apr-01-2016
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Activities of Daily Living
Age Factors
Aged
Clinical Protocols
Combined Modality Therapy
Denmark
Female
Food, Formulated
Geriatric Assessment
Humans
Inpatients
Male
Milk Proteins - administration & dosage
Mobility Limitation
Muscle strength
Nutritional Status
Patient Discharge
Research Design
Resistance Training
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Abstract
Hospitalization in older adults is characterized by physical inactivity and a risk of losing function and independence. Systematic strength training can improve muscle strength and functional performance in older adults. Few studies have examined the effect of a program initiated during hospitalization and continued after discharge. We conducted a feasibility study prior to this trial and found a progression model for loaded sit-to-stands feasible in older medical patients. This study aims to determine whether a simple supervised strength training program for the lower extremities (based on the model), combined with post-training protein supplementation initiated during hospitalization and continued at home for 4 weeks, is superior to usual care on change in mobility 4 weeks after discharge in older medical patients.
Eighty older medical patients (65 years or older) acutely admitted from their own homes will be included in this randomized, controlled, parallel-group, investigator-blinded, superiority trial. After baseline assessments patients will be randomized to (1) intervention: progressive strength training during hospitalization and after discharge (home-based), or (2) control: usual care. Shortly after discharge, 4 weeks after discharge (primary end point) and 6 months after discharge patients will be assessed in their own homes. The intervention encompasses strength training consisting of two lower extremity exercises (sit-to-stand and heel raise) daily during hospitalization and three times per week for 4 weeks after discharge. Both exercises follow pre-defined models for progression and will be performed for three sets of 8-12 repetitions maximum in each training session. Thereafter, the patient will be asked to consume a protein supplement given orally containing 18 g milk-based protein. The primary outcome will be change in the de Morton Mobility Index score from baseline to 4 weeks after discharge. Secondary outcomes will be 24-h mobility level, isometric knee extension strength, the 30-sec sit-to-stand test, habitual gait speed, hand-grip strength, and Activities of Daily Living.
We chose to investigate the effect of a minimal time-consuming treatment approach, i.e. two well-performed strength training exercises combined with protein supplementation, to facilitate implementation in a busy clinical care setting, given a positive trial outcome.
ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01964482 .
Notes
Cites: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000 Apr;55(4):M221-3110811152
Cites: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000 Dec;48(12):1545-5211129741
Cites: Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2001 Jan;80(1):13-811138949
Cites: Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2001 Jul;80(7):503-911421518
Cites: Ann Med. 2001 Jul;33(5):337-4311491192
Cites: J Physiol. 2001 Aug 15;535(Pt 1):301-1111507179
Cites: Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002 Feb;34(2):364-8011828249
Cites: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001 Nov;49(11):1418-2711890578
Cites: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002 Mar;50(3):461-711943041
Cites: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002 May;50(5):889-9612028177
Cites: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 Jun;83(6):811-512048660
Cites: Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2002 Jun;12(3):186-9212135452
Cites: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003 Apr;51(4):451-812657063
Cites: Clin Nutr. 2003 Jun;22(3):321-3612765673
Cites: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(2):CD00275912804434
Cites: Clin Nutr. 2003 Aug;22(4):415-2112880610
Cites: Am J Epidemiol. 2003 Oct 1;158(7):639-4414507599
Cites: J Appl Physiol (1985). 2003 Nov;95(5):1851-6014555665
Cites: Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004 Apr;36(4):674-8815064596
Cites: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Jul;85(7 Suppl 3):S31-42; quiz S43-415221722
Cites: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004 Aug;52(8):1263-7015271112
Cites: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004 Jul;59(7):755-6115304541
Cites: J Physiother. 2014 Sep;60(3):151-625092418
Cites: Clin Interv Aging. 2014;9:1775-8225342896
Cites: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2014 Dec;69(12):1511-824799356
Cites: Phys Ther. 2015 Jan;95(1):9-2425223237
Cites: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015 Jan;63(1):55-6225597557
Cites: Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2015;10:2737026037333
Cites: J Aging Phys Act. 2015 Oct;23(4):542-925415513
Cites: Clin Sci (Lond). 1992 Mar;82(3):321-71312417
Cites: J Appl Physiol (1985). 1992 Nov;73(5):2172-81474100
Cites: J Gerontol. 1994 Mar;49(2):M85-948126356
Cites: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1995 Nov;50 Spec No:113-97493203
Cites: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1997 Sep;52(5):M275-859310081
Cites: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998 Jan;79(1):24-309440412
Cites: Nutrition. 1999 Feb;15(2):116-229990575
Cites: Res Q Exerc Sport. 1999 Jun;70(2):113-910380242
Cites: Age Ageing. 2011 Jul;40(4):423-921624928
Cites: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011 Sep;92(9):1395-40321878210
Cites: Arch Intern Med. 2011 Nov 14;171(20):1854-621949032
Cites: Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(3):202-921962209
Cites: J Eval Clin Pract. 2012 Feb;18(1):128-3421457411
Cites: Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Dec;96(6):1454-6423134885
Cites: Ugeskr Laeger. 2005 Aug 29;167(35):3297-30016138973
Cites: Br J Sports Med. 2006 Sep;40(9):779-8416825270
Cites: Clin Rehabil. 2006 Aug;20(8):701-816944827
Cites: Br J Sports Med. 2006 Dec;40(12):992-716980531
Cites: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(1):CD00595517253572
Cites: Nat Protoc. 2006;1(5):2277-8117406468
Cites: J Nutr Health Aging. 2008 Jun-Jul;12(6):395-918548178
Cites: J Rehabil Med. 2008 Jul;40(7):589-9118758678
Cites: Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:6318713451
Cites: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2008 Oct;63(10):1076-8118948558
Cites: Clin Rehabil. 2008 Oct-Nov;22(10-11):902-1018955422
Cites: Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009 Jan;88(1):66-7718688198
Cites: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008 Dec;56(12):2171-919093915
Cites: BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:25019068135
Cites: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(3):CD00275919588334
Cites: Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2010 Jan;13(1):34-919898232
Cites: Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2010 May;13(3):271-620154609
Cites: Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010 May;42(5):902-1419996996
Cites: Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010 Feb;20(1):49-6420487503
Cites: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2010 Jul;65(7):727-3320363833
Cites: Surg Oncol. 2010 Sep;19(3):140-820006488
Cites: BMC Geriatr. 2010;10:7220920285
Cites: J Rehabil Med. 2010 Nov;42(10):956-6121031293
Cites: JAMA. 2010 Nov 3;304(17):1919-2821045098
Cites: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010 Nov;58(11):2085-9121054288
Cites: J Appl Physiol (1985). 2010 Dec;109(6):1628-3420864557
Cites: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011 Jan;92(1):51-821187205
Cites: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011 Jan;59(1):91-521158744
Cites: Phys Ther. 2011 Feb;91(2):277-8521212377
Cites: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011 Feb;59(2):266-7321314647
Cites: Br J Sports Med. 2011 Mar;45(3):233-421257666
Cites: J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006 Nov-Dec;43(7):939-4617436179
Cites: JAMA. 2007 Apr 25;297(16):1772-417456818
Cites: Med Eng Phys. 2007 Oct;29(8):930-417134934
Cites: Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2007 Oct;17(5):464-7217924926
Cites: Ann Intern Med. 2008 Feb 19;148(4):W60-618283201
Cites: J Aging Phys Act. 2008 Apr;16(2):201-1418483442
Cites: Br J Nutr. 2012 Nov 28;108(10):1780-822313809
Cites: BMJ. 2013;346:e758623303884
Cites: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2013 Mar;68(3):331-722972940
Cites: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Aug;94(8):1458-7223473702
Cites: Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Sep;92(9):789-9623552331
Cites: BMC Geriatr. 2013;13:10724112948
Cites: Geriatr Nurs. 2004 Jul-Aug;25(4):212-715311196
Cites: Circulation. 1968 Dec;38(6):1104-155721960
Cites: J Psychiatr Res. 1975 Nov;12(3):189-981202204
Cites: Pain. 1975 Sep;1(3):277-991235985
Cites: Am J Psychiatry. 1983 Jun;140(6):734-96846631
Cites: J Psychiatr Res. 1982-1983;17(1):37-497183759
Cites: Int Disabil Stud. 1988;10(2):64-73042746
Cites: Ageing Res Rev. 2013 Sep;12(4):898-90623948422
Cites: Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2014 Feb;24(1):e1-1024151875
Cites: Exp Gerontol. 2014 Apr;52:1-824447828
Cites: Clin Rehabil. 2014 Apr;28(4):319-2824057894
Cites: BMJ. 2014;348:g168724609605
Cites: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014 Apr;62(4):788-924731037
Cites: PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e9639824820733
Cites: Clin Neuropsychol. 1999 Aug;13(3):348-5810726605
PubMed ID
27039381 View in PubMed
Less detail

Twenty-four-hour mobility during acute hospitalization in older medical patients.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature120753
Source
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2013 Mar;68(3):331-7
Publication Type
Article
Date
Mar-2013
Author
Mette Merete Pedersen
Ann Christine Bodilsen
Janne Petersen
Nina Beyer
Ove Andersen
Louise Lawson-Smith
Henrik Kehlet
Thomas Bandholm
Author Affiliation
Clinical Research Centre (136), Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, DK-2650 Hvidovre, Denmark. mette.merete.pedersen@hvh.regionh.dk
Source
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2013 Mar;68(3):331-7
Date
Mar-2013
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Accelerometry
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Algorithms
Bed Rest - statistics & numerical data
Denmark
Female
Hospitalization
Humans
Length of Stay - statistics & numerical data
Male
Mobility Limitation
Prospective Studies
Walking
Abstract
Inactivity during hospitalization in older medical patients may lead to functional decline. This study quantified 24-hour mobility, validated the accelerometers used, and assessed the daily level of basic mobility in acutely admitted older medical patients during their hospitalization.
This is a prospective cohort study in older medical patients able to walk independently (ambulatory patients) and those not able to walk independently (nonambulatory patients) on admission. The 24-hour mobility level during hospitalization was assessed by measuring the time in lying, sitting, and standing and/or walking, by two accelerometers. Basic mobility was quantified within 48 hours of admission and repeated daily throughout hospitalization.
Forty-three ambulatory patients and six nonambulatory patients were included. The ambulatory patients tended to be hospitalized for fewer days than the nonambulatory patients (7 vs 16, p = .13). The ambulatory patients were lying median 17 hours, (interquartile range [IQR]: 14.4-19.1), sitting 5.1 hours (IQR: 2.9-7.1), and standing and/or walking 1.1 hours (IQR: 0.6-1.7) per day. On days with independency in basic mobility, the ambulatory patients were lying 4.1 hours less compared with days with dependency in basic mobility (p
PubMed ID
22972940 View in PubMed
Less detail