August 8, 2022


Slick Healthy

Can two multimodal psychomotor exercise programs improve

Trial design

The present examine was designed as a 24-7 days randomized managed trial (RCT), solitary-blinded, with a three-arm parallel assignment. Local community-dwelling older adults from Évora (Portugal) were allocated into 3 groups (allocation ratio 1:1:1): experimental team 1 (EG1) was assigned a multimodal psychomotor system experimental group 2 (EG2) was assigned a mixed system (multimodal psychomotor program + WBV) and the command team (CG) was asked to retain their every day lifestyle pursuits. Just after the examine completed, those in the CG ended up supplied an identical drop prevention application. This trial was executed amongst March 2018 and January 2019, and it was beforehand registered at (NCT03446352). Also, this study was described in accordance with the CONSORT recommendations for RCTs (


Contributors were male and feminine neighborhood-dwelling more mature adults recruited in local community settings as the local senior college and leisure centers through pamphlets. In each local community placing, verbal interaction was employed to existing our research and for responses to any doable doubts. The more mature adults who expressed desire to take part have been scheduled for the baseline evaluation.

A minimum sample dimensions of 45 individuals was demanded (15 contributors per team) to detect a treatment method variance, calculated by the on the internet G*Power software program, less than the adhering to parameters: α = 0.05 and power = 0.95. Accounting for an anticipated dropout amount of 20%, a bare minimum of 60 participants were recruited for this research.

The inclusion conditions comprised the next: a) age ≥ 65 years previous b) categorised with average or superior bodily independence in accordance to the Composite Physical Purpose (CPF) scale (≥ 18 factors) [22] c) individuals who had professional at least one particular tumble in the preceding 6 months or had been discovered with a substantial chance of falling according to the final result in the Fullerton State-of-the-art Harmony (FAB) scale (≤ 25 points) [23]. Exclusion standards comprised: a) the presence of cognitive impairment (≤ 22 details in the Mini-Psychological Condition Evaluation – MMSE) [24] b) walking dependently (e.g., with mobility aids) c) musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and neurological problems [25] and d) attending bodily and/or cognitive structured physical exercise packages preceding 6 months [26].

To begin with, sixty-a single more mature older people have been assessed for eligibility and agreed to participate in the research as explained in Fig. 1. 5 members did not satisfy the inclusion conditions, which remained a total of fifty-6 participants (47 gals and 9 adult men). For individuals who were enrolled in this examine, simple randomization was done according to the “Random Staff Generator” ( into EG1 (n = 18), EG2 (n = 19), and CG (n = 19). An investigator with no medical involvement in the trial done the randomization.

Fig. 1

All the analyze participants ended up volunteers and gave their penned educated consent. This research was accepted by the University of Évora Ethics Committee – Well being and Very well Getting (reference selection 16012) and carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.


A trained evaluator in the rehabilitation sciences area separately assessed all participants at baseline, at article-intervention (24 weeks), and soon after a 12-7 days no-intervention adhere to-up. The evaluator was blinded to participants’ allocation. Cognitive and other steps assessed by questionnaires had been executed in a laboratory silent area. Affordance perception, actual physical functionality and entire body composition assessments had been executed in a laboratory corridor. All assessments had been preceded by the protocoled rationalization and/or demonstration done by the evaluator.

Information selection was carried out at the College of Évora laboratories.

Final result measures


Selective and sustained interest was assessed by the d2 Exam of Awareness, which was demonstrated to be a valid and trusted measurement in older men and women [27]. Members had 20 s in each of the 14 traces of the check to identify and mark the letter “d” with two dashes (above or underneath the letter), as swiftly as possible. Steps of functionality comprised things processed (n) objects regarded correctly (n) total efficacy (n), which indicates the romantic relationship between speed and thoroughness in the undertaking focus index (n), which reflects the potential to concentrate fluctuation price (n), which signifies the regularity in the job execution and percentage of glitches (%).

Affordance notion

The perceptual and stepping-ahead boundary was assessed by the stepping-ahead affordance notion examination, founded as a legitimate, precise, and trusted software for tumble danger evaluation in local community-dwelling older adults [8]. The estimated stepping-ahead and genuine stepping-ahead distances were being collected as described by Almeida et al. [8]. In addition, the absolute error (|real-estimated distances|) and the error inclination measuring the magnitude and way error (overestimation: true < estimated distances or underestimation: real> approximated distances), (around- or underestimation) had been also computed.


Multidimensional stability was assessed by the FAB scale, which is regarded a legitimate and reliable instrument designed to evaluate independently residing more mature grownups. This scale contains 10 specific exams, these that every single one ranged from (worst) to 4 points (ideal), and the “Total FAB scale” (sum of the check scores) ranged from (worst) to 40 factors (very best) [23].


The occurrence of falls, respective situation (e.g., style/place of fall), and consequent accidents were assessed by implies of an interview next a 13-merchandise script, while only the event of falls was made use of in this manuscript. A fall was outlined in accordance with the definition proposed by the Globe Wellbeing Organization “as an party which outcomes in a human being coming to rest inadvertently on the floor or floor or other reduced level” [28]. The variety of fall occurrences in the prior 6 months was recorded retrospectively at baseline and at submit-intervention.

Secondary outcomes measures

Each individual session exercising intensity was assessed by the Borg Score of Perceived Exertion scale, ranging from “very, very light” (6 factors) to “very, pretty hard” (20 factors), calculated [29]. Pleasure degree attained by every work out session was assessed by the Caregiver Cure Satisfaction (CTS) questionnaire, ranging from “extremely dissatisfied” (1 stage) to “extremely satisfied” (5 details) [30]. Cognitive effectiveness was assessed by the MMSE [24]. Sociodemographic qualities were being assessed by means of an interview centered on a script. System mass index was calculated by dividing fat by peak squared (kg/m2), in which the participant’s top (m) was measured shoeless in a stadiometer (Seca 206, Hamburg, Germany), and the bodyweight (kg) was calculated working with an electronic scale (Seca 760, Hamburg, Germany). Bodily independence was assessed by the CPF scale, ranging from (worst) to 24 points (most effective) [22]. Centered on the former 12-item CPF scale rating, contributors were categorised as lower performing (< 18 points), moderate functioning (18–23 points), and high functioning (24 points). Finally, physical activity (the sum of walking, moderated and vigorous physical activity) was assessed by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) using the metabolic equivalent of task ([MET]-min/week), calculated as activity duration*frequency per week*MET intensity [31].

Multimodal exercise programs

Participants randomly engaged in one of the two EGs (3x/week on non-consecutive days 75 min/session). Each EG was divided into two classes, without differences, with up to 10 participants. A master’s degree therapist in psychomotor therapy planned and directed both EG sessions under the supervision of a university Sports Sciences professor. The therapist who planned and operationalized both exercise intervention programs did not participate in the assessments. When the EGs participants were absent for 3 consecutive sessions, the missed sessions were rescheduled to maintain the established attendance level (≥ 80%). EG1 assigned a multimodal psychomotor program, with 75-minute sessions, that privileged the body and movement as mediators. This program integrated simultaneous neurocognitive (focusing on executive function training) and motor (focusing on physical fitness performance) stimulation through several exercises designed to promote general physiological and specific neurophysiological stress in the involved mechanisms. EG2 assigned a combined program (multimodal psychomotor program + WBV program starting with 72 + 3 min/session and ending with 69 + 6 min/session, respectively). The time allocated to the WBV program was proportionally withdrawn from each phase of the multimodal psychomotor program. Regarding the WBV program performance, the participants stood shoeless on the side-alternating vibratory platform (Galileo® Med35) in a semi-squat position. The exercise time ranging from 45 to 60 (s), the number of series ranging from 4 to 6, and the frequency ranging from 12.6 to 15 Hz progressively increased over intervention. The amplitude (3 mm) and resting time between series (60 s) remained equal throughout the intervention.

The complexity and intensity of both programs increased with sessions (planned for moderate intensity: until approximately 13 points at RPE scale). Each session was divided into 5 phases: beginning ritual (~ 5 min), warm-up (~ 10 min), main section (~ 50 min), cool down (~ 5 min), and a finishing ritual (~ 5 min). After a neuromuscular activation warm-up, the main section was implemented, comprising multimodal exercises. In this phase, neurocognitive-, motor-, and sensorial-specific exercises promoting simultaneous cognitive (e.g., attention – to assign different commands to different actions), perceptual (e.g., motor planning – to imagine geometric figures on the floor and then execute the movement), and motor (e.g., balance – body sport balance disc and fitball exercises to change the base of support) stimulation were performed on identical alternated periods (10–15 min). During the cool-down, relaxation techniques and exercises involving body awareness/scheme were performed. Finally, at the finishing ritual, participants recorded intensity and satisfaction levels through the RPE scale and CTS questionnaire, respectively.

Data analysis

To ensure participant confidentiality and anonymity, a code was attributed to each participant. Data were analyzed using the SPSS software (v. 24.0, IBM SPSS Inc.). The significance level for all the statistical analyses was established at p <  0.05.

Descriptive data are expressed in terms of the mean and standard deviation (SD) for quantitative variables and frequency (%) for categorical variables. Differences (∆) between each evaluation moment (baseline, post-intervention, and follow-up) were calculated for all variables by the formula ∆ = momentx – momentx-1, and the proportional changes were computed such as ∆% = [(momentx – momentx-1)/momentx-1] × 100).

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and Levene homogeneity of variances test were used to evaluate the normality of the data distribution. Since much of the data were not normally distributed, non-parametric tests were performed, namely, the Friedman test for comparisons within groups followed by the related pairwise post hoc test and the Kruskal-Wallis test for comparisons between groups followed by the independent pairwise post hoc test. In the case of two related samples, the Wilcoxon test was carried out for within-group comparisons. Additionally, to perform comparisons regarding qualitative variables (error tendency variables), Cochran’s Q test was used for within-group comparisons, and the chi-squared test was used for between-group comparisons.

The magnitude of the treatment effect was determined following the instructions for non-parametric tests [32] and according to Cohen’s method, in which the effect size (ES) was computed as r = (Z/√N). Standardized classification for small (0.10), medium (0.30), and large (0.50) effects was used [33].