Search

Background Mobility limitation in older age reduces quality of life, generates substantial health- and social-care costs, and increases mortality. Objective The REtirement in ACTion (REACT) trial aimed to establish whether or not a community-based active ageing intervention could prevent decline in physical functioning in older adults already at increased risk of mobility limitation. Design A multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with parallel process and health economic evaluations. Setting Urban and semi-rural locations across three sites in England. Participants Physically frail or pre-frail older adults (aged ≥ 65 years; Short Physical Performance Battery score of 4–9). Recruitment was primarily via 35 primary care practices. Interventions Participants were randomly assigned to receive brief advice (three healthy ageing education sessions) or a 12-month, group-based, multimodal exercise and behavioural maintenance programme delivered in fitness and community centres. Randomisation was stratified by site and used a minimisation algorithm to balance age, sex and Short Physical Performance Battery score. Data collection and analyses were blinded. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was change in lower limb physical function (Short Physical Performance Battery score) at 24 months, analysed using an intention-to-treat analysis. The economic evaluation adopted the NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. Results Between June 2016 and October 2017, 777 participants (mean age 77.6 years, standard deviation 6.8 years; 66% female; mean Short Physical Performance Battery score 7.37, standard deviation 1.56) were randomised to the intervention arm (n = 410) or the control arm (n = 367). Data collection was completed in October 2019. Primary outcome data at 24 months were provided by 628 (80.8%) participants. At the 24-month follow-up, the Short Physical Performance Battery score was significantly greater in the intervention arm (mean 8.08, standard deviation 2.87) than in the control arm (mean 7.59, standard deviation 2.61), with an adjusted mean difference of 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.92). The difference in lower limb function between intervention and control participants was clinically meaningful at both 12 and 24 months. Self-reported physical activity significantly increased in the intervention arm compared with the control arm, but this change was not observed in device-based physical activity data collected during the trial. One adverse event was related to the intervention. Attrition rates were low (19% at 24 months) and adherence was high. Engagement with the REACT intervention was associated with positive changes in exercise competence, relatedness and enjoyment and perceived physical, social and mental well-being benefits. The intervention plus usual care was cost-effective compared with care alone over the 2 years of REACT; the price year was 2019. In the base-case scenario, the intervention saved £103 per participant, with a quality-adjusted life-year gain of 0.04 (95% confidence interval 0.006 to 0.074) within the 2-year trial window. Lifetime horizon modelling estimated that further cost savings and quality-adjusted life-year gains were accrued up to 15 years post randomisation. Conclusion A relatively low-resource, 1-year multimodal exercise and behavioural maintenance intervention can help older adults to retain physical functioning over a 24-month period. The results indicate that the well-established trajectory of declining physical functioning in older age is modifiable. Limitations Participants were not blinded to study arm allocation. However, the primary outcome was independently assessed by blinded data collectors. The secondary outcome analyses were exploratory, with no adjustment for multiple testing, and should be interpreted accordingly. Future work Following refinements guided by the process evaluation findings, the REACT intervention is suitable for large-scale implementation. Further research will optimise implementation of REACT at scale. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN45627165. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 10, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background Challenges of recruitment to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and successful strategies to overcome them should be clearly reported to improve recruitment into future trials. REtirement in ACTion (REACT) is a United Kingdom-based multicenter RCT recruiting older adults at high risk of mobility disability to a 12-month group-based exercise and behavior maintenance program or to a minimal Healthy Aging control intervention. Methods The recruitment target was 768 adults, aged 65 years and older scoring 4–9 on the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). Recruitment methods include the following: (a) invitations mailed by general practitioners (GPs); (b) invitations distributed via third-sector organizations; and (c) public relations (PR) campaign. Yields, efficiency, and costs were calculated. Results The study recruited 777 (33.9% men) community-dwelling, older adults (mean age 77.55 years (SD 6.79), mean SPPB score 7.37 (SD 1.56)), 95.11% white (n = 739) and broadly representative of UK quintiles of deprivation. Over a 20-month recruitment period, 25,559 invitations were issued. Eighty-eight percent of the participants were recruited via GP invitations, 5.4% via the PR campaign, 3% via word-of-mouth, and 2.5% via third-sector organizations. Mean recruitment cost per participant was £78.47, with an extra £26.54 per recruit paid to GPs to cover research costs. Conclusions REACT successfully recruited to target. Response rates were lower than initially predicted and recruitment timescales required adjustment. Written invitations from GPs were the most efficient method for recruiting older adults at risk of mobility disability. Targeted efforts could achieve more ethnically diverse cohorts. All trials should be required to provide recruitment data to enable evidence-based planning of future trials.

BACKGROUND: Mobility limitations in old age can greatly reduce quality of life, generate substantial health and social care costs, and increase mortality. Through the Retirement in Action (REACT) trial, we aimed to establish whether a community-based active ageing intervention could prevent decline in lower limb physical functioning in older adults already at increased risk of mobility limitation.METHODS: In this pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, single-blind, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial, we recruited older adults (aged 65 years or older and who are not in full-time employment) with reduced lower limb physical functioning (Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB] score 4-9) from 35 primary care practices across three sites (Bristol and Bath; Birmingham; and Devon) in England. Participants were randomly assigned to receive brief advice (three healthy ageing education sessions) or a 12-month, group-based, multimodal physical activity (64 1-h exercise sessions) and behavioural maintenance (21 45-min sessions) programme delivered by charity and community or leisure centre staff in local communities. Randomisation was stratified by site and adopted a minimisation approach to balance groups by age, sex, and SPPB score, using a centralised, online, randomisation algorithm. Researchers involved in data collection and analysis were masked but participants were not because of the nature of the intervention. The primary outcome was change in SPPB score at 24 months, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN45627165.FINDINGS: Between June 20, 2016, and Oct 30, 2017, 777 participants (mean age 77·6 [SD 6·8] years; 66% female; mean SPPB score 7·37 [1·56]) were randomly assigned to the intervention (n=410) and control (n=367) groups. Primary outcome data at 24 months were provided by 628 (81%) participants (294 in the control group and 334 in the intervention group). At the 24-month follow-up, the SPPB score (adjusted for baseline SPPB score, age, sex, study site, and exercise group) was significantly greater in the intervention group (mean 8·08 [SD 2·87]) than in the control group (mean 7·59 [2·61]), with an adjusted mean difference of 0·49 (95% CI 0·06-0·92; p=0·014), which is just below our predefined clinically meaningful difference of 0·50. One adverse event was related to the intervention; the most common unrelated adverse events were heart conditions, strokes, and falls.INTERPRETATION: For older adults at risk of mobility limitations, the REACT intervention showed that a 12-month physical activity and behavioural maintenance programme could help prevent decline in physical function over a 24-month period.FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research Programme (13/164/51).

Objective This two-site randomised trial compared the effectiveness of a voluntary sector-led, community-based diabetes prevention programme to a waiting-list control group at 6 months, and included an observational follow-up of the intervention arm to 12 months. Methods Adults aged 18–75 years at increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes due to elevated blood glucose and being overweight were recruited from primary care practices at two UK sites, with data collected in participants’ homes or community venues. Participants were randomised using an online central allocation service. The intervention, comprising the prototype “Living Well, Taking Control” (LWTC) programme, involved four weekly two-hour group sessions held in local community venues to promote changes in diet and physical activity, plus planned follow-up contacts at two, three, six, nine and 12 months alongside 5 hours of additional activities/classes. Waiting list controls received usual care for 6 months before accessing the programme. The primary outcome was weight loss at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure, physical activity, diet, health status and well-being. Only researchers conducting analyses were blinded. Results The target sample of 314 participants (157 each arm) was largely representative of local populations, including 44% men, 26% from ethnic minorities and 33% living in deprived areas. Primary outcome data were available for 285 (91%) participants (141 intervention, 144 control). Between baseline and 6 months, intervention participants on average lost more weight than controls (− 1.7 kg, 95% CI − 2.59 to − 0.85). Higher attendance was associated with greater weight loss (− 3.0 kg, 95% CI − 4.5 to − 1.5). The prototype LWTC programme more than doubled the proportion of participants losing > 5% of their body weight (21% intervention vs. 8% control, OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.36 to 5.90) and improved self-reported dietary behaviour and health status. There were no impacts on HbA1c, blood pressure, physical activity and well-being at 6 months and, amongst intervention participants, few further changes from six to 12-months (e.g. average weight re-gain 0.36 kg, 95% CI − 0.20 to 0.91). There were no serious adverse events but four exercise-related injuries were reported in the intervention arm. Conclusions This voluntary sector-led diabetes prevention programme reached a broad spectrum of the population and had modest effects on weight-related outcomes, but limited impacts on other diabetes risk factors. Trial registration Trial registration number: ISRCTN70221670, 5 September 2014 Funder (National Institute for Health Research School for Public Health Research) project reference number: SPHR-EXE-PES-COM.