↓ Skip to main content

Unsupervised progressive elastic band exercises for frail geriatric inpatients objectively monitored by new exercise-integrated technology—a feasibility trial with an embedded qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Unsupervised progressive elastic band exercises for frail geriatric inpatients objectively monitored by new exercise-integrated technology—a feasibility trial with an embedded qualitative study
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40814-017-0202-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. R. Rathleff, T. Bandholm, E. G. Spaich, M. Jorgensen, J. Andreasen

Abstract

Frailty is a serious condition frequently present in geriatric inpatients that potentially causes serious adverse events. Strength training is acknowledged as a means of preventing or delaying frailty and loss of function in these patients. However, limited hospital resources challenge the amount of supervised training, and unsupervised training could possibly supplement supervised training thereby increasing the total exercise dose during admission. A new valid and reliable technology, the BandCizer, objectively measures the exact training dosage performed. The purpose was to investigate feasibility and acceptability of an unsupervised progressive strength training intervention monitored by BandCizer for frail geriatric inpatients. This feasibility trial included 15 frail inpatients at a geriatric ward. At hospitalization, the patients were prescribed two elastic band exercises to be performed unsupervised once daily. A BandCizer Datalogger enabling measurement of the number of sets, repetitions, and time-under-tension was attached to the elastic band. The patients were instructed in performing strength training: 3 sets of 10 repetitions (10-12 repetition maximum (RM)) with a separation of 2-min pauses and a time-under-tension of 8 s. The feasibility criterion for the unsupervised progressive exercises was that 33% of the recommended number of sets would be performed by at least 30% of patients. In addition, patients and staff were interviewed about their experiences with the intervention. Four (27%) out of 15 patients completed 33% of the recommended number of sets. For the total sample, the average percent of performed sets was 23% and for those who actually trained (n = 12) 26%. Patients and staff expressed a general positive attitude towards the unsupervised training as an addition to the supervised training sessions. However, barriers were also described-especially constant interruptions. Based on the predefined criterion for feasibility, the unsupervised training was not feasible, although the criterion was almost met. The patients and staff mainly expressed positive attitudes towards the unsupervised training. As even a small training dosage has been shown to improve the physical performance of geriatric inpatients, the proposed intervention might be relevant if the interruptions are decreased in future large-scale trials and if the adherence is increased. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02702557, February 29, 2016. Data Protection Agency: 2016-42, February 25, 2016. Ethics Committee: No registration needed, December 8, 2015 (e-mail correspondence).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 18%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 27 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 17%
Sports and Recreations 12 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 12%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 32 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 February 2018.
All research outputs
#2,967,339
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#178
of 1,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,082
of 325,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#1
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,045 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,998 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.