Table 2 Description of studies included in the review

Dawe et al., 1995 [56]

Cognitive health

Pre-post test

N = 20

Duration, 1 h

Blood pressure = mmHg

Intervention group = significantly increased pulse rate (from 69.2 to 71.2 beats/min) and blood pressure (from 140/75 to 145/73 mmHg) (p’s < 0.001)

Nursing home residents

Intervention group = received the Canadian Red Cross Society’s Senior’s Fun and Fitness program.

Pulse = beats/min

Cognitively unimpaired

Three cognitive tests:

Male, 4; Female, 16

1. Set test = number of words correctly recalled;

Control group = no differences in pulse rate (between 74.1 to 74.7 beats/min), blood pressure (from 137/74 to 136/72 mmHg), and three cognitive tests (p’s > 0.05).

Intervention group (n = 10)

Control group = viewed a 15-min video of low-intensity exercise program

Mean age: 83.9

2. Word fluency test = number of words correctly recalled;

Control group (n = 10)

Between groups, intervention group = showed a better cognitive performance (i.e., improved recall ability in the Set test (40 words to 46 words) than the control group (43 words to 44 words) (p < 0.05))

Mean age = 85.1

Overall intervention compliance = no information

3. Symbol digit test = number of corrected digit encoding

Means et al., 1996 [61]

Physical health

Pre-post test

N = 65

Duration, 6 weeks

Performance score (0 = poorest performance to 3 = best performance; total point = 36) and completion time (in seconds) on a functionally oriented obstacle course

Practice group = significantly decreased the completion time (440.9 to 351.6 s); increased in performance score (24.6 to 26.4) (p’s < 0.05)

Community-dwelling;

Balance and mobility exercise protocol:

One or more falls within a year prior to the study

Active stretching, postural control, endurance walking, repetitive muscle coordination exercises

Non-practice group = significantly decreased the completion time (319.1 to 293.5 secs); increased in performance score (25.7 to 26.7) (p’s < 0.05)

Gender: no specified

Self-reported falls = number of falls

Cognitive intervention sessions

Fall related injuries

Between groups = no significant differences in the completion time performance score (p > 0.05)

Intervention group (n = 31)

Practice group = received extra training on an obstacle course along with the exercise protocol

Mean age: 75

Between groups = no significant difference in number of falls (p > 0.05)

Control group (n = 34)

Mean age, 75

Non-practice group = receive no training on an obstacle course but only the exercise protocol

Overall, all participants = decreased the completion time (378 to 321 secs); improved in mean performance scores (from 25.2 to 26.5 points) after the exercise protocols

Overall intervention compliance = no information

Wolfson et al., 1996 [68]

Physical health

RCT

N = 110

Phase 1

Loss of balance during sensory organization test (LOB) = number of times that participants received support from the experimenter

Balance group = significant improvements in LOB (3.6 to 1.4), FBOS (0.44 to 0.52 % of foot length), SST (12.2 to 16.6 s) (p’s < 0.001); no improvement in ISOK (8.0 to 8.1 Nm/kg) and UGV (1.14 to 1.18 m/s) (p’s > 0.05)

Community-dwelling

3-month balance and strength training were provided to the respective groups (45-min per week)

Healthy

Male, 64; Female, 46

Balance group (n = 28)

Control group was encouraged to continue their usual activities

Functional Base of Support (FBOS) = % of foot length

Strength group = significant improvements in ISOK (6.5 to 8.0 Nm/kg) and LOB (3.7 to 2.1) (p’s < 0.001); no improvements in other measures: FBOS (0.38 to 0.39 % of foot length), and SST (9.1 to 10.0 secs), and UGV (1.08 to 1.17 m/s) (p’s > 0.05)

Mean age, 78.9

Strength group (n = 28)

Phase 2

Single Stance Time (SST) = seconds

Isokinetic strength (ISOK) = Nm/kg

Mean age, 80.0

6-month low-intensity balance and strength maintenance programe (Tai Chi training with self-administered home practice) (1 hour per week)

Usual Gait Velocity (UGV) = m/s

Balance and strength group = significant improvements in LOB (3.6 to 1.9), FBOS (0.4 to 0.5 % of foot length), SST (5.4 to 15.1 secs), ISOK (6.8 to 8.0 Nm/kg) (p’s < 0.001); no significant improvement in UGV (1.12 to 1.09 m/s) (p’s > 0.05)

Balance and strength group (n = 27)

Mean age, 79.7

Control group (n = 27)

Mean age, 80.6

Overall intervention compliance = 72 %

Overall, no group differences (p’s > 0.10)

Mangione et al., 1999 [60]

Physical health

Pre-post test

N = 39

Duration, 10 weeks

Timed chair rise = second

High intensity group = significantly reduced the chair rise time (23.5 to 19.3 secs) and AIMS2 pain score (4.3 to 3.0); significantly increased in 6-min walk (488.0 to 540.6 m), aerobic capacity (11.0 to 13.3 min), and peak oxygen

Exercise training = Stationary cycling; 1 hour each session; cycle 25 min; 3 times per week

6-min walk test = m

Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale 2 (AIMS2) pain score

High intensity group = stationary cycling at 70 % heart rate reserve

Aerobic capacity time for graded exercise test = min

consumption (1454.1 to 1545.3 ml/min) (p’s < 0.01)

Low-intensity group = stationary cycling at 40 % heart rate reserve

Low-intensity group = significantly reduced the chair rise time (23.1 to 19.0 secs) and AIMS2 pain score (3.6 to 3.1); significantly increased in 6-min walk (491.1 to 526.9 m), aerobic capacity time (11.1 to 13.0 min), and peak oxygen consumption (1710.2 to 1807.3 ml/min) (p’s < 0.01)

Peak oxygen consumption = ml/min

Overall intervention compliance = no information

Suffered from knee osteoarthritis

Community-dwelling

Male, 13; Female, 26

High intensity cycling group (n = 19) mean age = 71.1

Low-intensity cycling group (n = 20)

Mean age = 71.0

Study

Domain

Design

Sample

Intervention

Key outcomes

Results

Brown et al., 2000 [55]

Physical health

RCT

N = 87

Duration, 3 months

Physical Performance Test (PPT) score

EXER group = significant improvements on the PPT score (29 to 31 points), strength measures (e.g., isometric knee extension: 62 to 65 ft/lb), ranged of motion (e.g., shoulder flexion: 160 to 165 mm), balance measures (e.g., one-limb stand: 4.1 to 7.6 s), and coordination and response time (358 to 377) (p’s < 0.05); no significant improvements in gait measures (p > 0.05)

Community-dwelling

Supervised exercise group = low-intensity supervised exercise program (22 exercises; 3 times per week) targeting all muscle groups

Strength measures = ft/lb

<32 points on Physical Performance Test (PPT)

Range of motion = mm

Balance measures:

Male, 20; Female, 28

Obstacle course = second; functional reach = inch; Romberg = second; one-limb stand = second; balance beam = second)

Supervised exercise group (EXER) (n = 48)

Home-based flexibility activity group = some of the exercises done in the other group and were not supervised.

HOME group = no significant improvements on PPT score (29 to 29 points), strength measures (e.g., Isometric knee extension: 56 to 54 ft/lb), balance measures (e.g., one-limb stand, 4.9 to 5.2 secs) and gait measures (p’s > 0.05); significant improvements in range of motion (e.g., should flexion, 159 to 161 mm), balance, gait, coordination/response time (351 to 417 msecs) (p’s < 0.05)

Gait measures : gait velocity = m/min; stride length = m ; stance time = second; swing = % of gait cycle; stance = % of gait cycle; double stance = %

Mean age, 83

Overall intervention compliance = no information

Home-based flexibility activity group (HOME) (n = 39)

Coordination/response = msec

Mena age, 83

DeVito et al., 2000 [57]

Physical health

Pre-post test

N = 105

Duration, 8–10 months

Mobility measures score

Intervention group = significant improvements in all outcomes (e.g. Balance score: 9.6 to 12.8) (p’s < 0.001)

Had a hospital admission lasting 2 days or more or had been on bed rest for 2 days or more within the past 1 month

Intervention group = 24 sessions (45 min) of 3 sets of low-intensity standard exercise modalities (3 times a week) targeting on flexibility, postural stability, balance and gait (e.g., extend leg up then back down, raise up and down on toes then heels, march in place etc.); continue performing exercise until 1 year after the baseline assessment; Individualization of the program according to participant’s ability and progress

Gait score

Balance score

Control group = significant improvements in all outcomes (e.g., Balance score: 9.8 to 10.4) (p’s < 0.001)

Muscle strength score

Between groups = intervention group has significant greater samples in improving in gait, balance and mobility measures (p’s < 0.001). e.g., 35.1 % of intervention group increased in walking ability while 15.9 % of control groups increased in walking ability (p < 0.001)

Male, 47; Female, 58

Intervention group (n = 60)

Mean age, 80

Control group (n = 45)

Mean age, 81

Control group = usual activities

Overall intervention compliance = 91 %

Schnelle et al., 2003 [66]

Physical health

RCT

N = 190

Duration, 8 months

Medical conditions (dermatological, genitourinary, gastrointestinal, respiratory, endocrine, neurological and cardiovascular systems, falls, and pain, psychiatric and nutritional disturbances) were extracted

Between groups = intervention group has significant smaller number of falls than the control group (p’ < 0.05); no difference on other medical conditions and cost of treatment (p’s > 0.05)

Living in nursing home

Intervention group = engaged into the low-intensity functional oriented exercise program: Functional Incidental Training (FIT) (5 days a week; every 2 h between 0800 to 1600)

Male, 28; Female, 162

Intervention group (n = 92)

Mean age, 87.3

Cost of treatment

Control group (n = 98)

Mean age, 88.6

Control group = received usual care from NH staff; no change in their physical activity or other measures.

Overall intervention compliance = 91 %

Morgan et al., 2004 [63]

Physical health

RCT

N = 229

Duration, 8 weeks

Gait and balance (Tinetti’s gait and balance assessment measures)

Exercise group = 28.6 % participants fell; risk of falling decreased with low baseline physical function (p < 0.001); increased fall risk with high physical function (p < 0.001)

Had a hospital admission or bed rest for 2 days or more within the previous month

Exercise group = perform chair-sitting exercise and standing balance exercises; 3 times per week.

Control group = 30.9 % participants fell

Self-reported functional status (SF-36) = range, 0-100

Control group = continue their usual activities.

Number of fall for 1 year after the assessment

Overall, 29.7 % of the participants reported a fall during study period

Overall intervention compliance = 70 %

Male, 67; Female, 162

Exercise group (n = 119)

Mean age, 81.0

Control group (n = 110)

Mean age, 80.1