Ó£»¨ÊÓÆµ

Skip to main content

Table 3 Impact of the multimodal exercise programs in the affordance perception and balance variables

From: Can two multimodal psychomotor exercise programs improve attention, affordance perception, and balance in community dwellings at risk of falling? A randomized controlled trial

ÌýÌý

Baseline (A)

Prevalence or Mean ± SD

Post-intervention (B)

Prevalence or Mean ± SD

Follow-up (C)

Prevalence or Mean ± SD

P-valuea

Pairwise Comparison

Perceptual and stepping-forward boundary

 Estimated stepping-forward (cm)

Ìý

EG1

53.1 ±â¶Ä‰10.4

53.5 ±â¶Ä‰14.0

54.1 ±â¶Ä‰12.1

0.779

–

Ìý

EG2

56.3 ±â¶Ä‰12.6

58.4 ±â¶Ä‰9.5

60.2 ±â¶Ä‰13.3

0.051

–

Ìý

CG

61.3 ±â¶Ä‰13.5

58.5 ±â¶Ä‰11.8

55.6 ±â¶Ä‰13.4

0.340

–

Ìý

P-valueb

0.069

0.178

0.454

ÌýÌý

 Real stepping-forward (cm)

Ìý

EG1

60.6 ±â¶Ä‰17.8

64.8 ±â¶Ä‰15.3

62.9 ±â¶Ä‰14.0

0.156

–

Ìý

EG2

65.7 ±â¶Ä‰10.9

67.3 ±â¶Ä‰11.7

66.5 ±â¶Ä‰15.0

0.432

–

Ìý

CG

69.5 ±â¶Ä‰16.5

64.4 ±â¶Ä‰19.4

61.7 ±â¶Ä‰18.4

0.157

–

Ìý

P-valueb

0.339

0.878

0.734

ÌýÌý

 Absolute Error (cm)

Ìý

EG1

10.4 ±â¶Ä‰8.0

11.4 ±â¶Ä‰8.5

11.0 ±â¶Ä‰8.7

0.528

–

Ìý

EG2

9.4 ±â¶Ä‰6.5

10.3 ±â¶Ä‰6.0

9.2 ±â¶Ä‰7.1

0.939

–

Ìý

CG

8.8 ±â¶Ä‰7.5

9.9 ±â¶Ä‰7.1

10.0 ±â¶Ä‰6.4

0.555

–

Ìý

P-valueb

0.644

0.928

0.852

ÌýÌý

 Error tendency (%)

 â¶ÄƒO±¹±ð°ù±ð²õ³Ù¾±³¾²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²Ô

EG1

12.5

6.3

31.3

0.039

–

 â¶ÄƒU²Ô»å±ð°ù±ð²õ³Ù¾±³¾²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²Ô

87.5

93.8

68.8

–

 â¶ÄƒO±¹±ð°ù±ð²õ³Ù¾±³¾²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²Ô

EG2

0

12.5

31.3

0.042

–

 â¶ÄƒU²Ô»å±ð°ù±ð²õ³Ù¾±³¾²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²Ô

100

87.5

68.8

–

 â¶ÄƒO±¹±ð°ù±ð²õ³Ù¾±³¾²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²Ô

CG

15.8

31.6

31.6

0.276

–

 â¶ÄƒU²Ô»å±ð°ù±ð²õ³Ù¾±³¾²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²Ô

84.2

68.4

68.4

–

P-valueb

0.199

0.199

0.223

ÌýÌý

 Multidimensional balance (points)

Ìý

EG1

27.1 ±â¶Ä‰4.9

31.5 ±â¶Ä‰3.7

29.0 ±â¶Ä‰4.7

< 0.001

B > A, C

Ìý

EG2

27.6 ±â¶Ä‰5.1

32.4 ±â¶Ä‰4.1

29.9 ±â¶Ä‰4.9

< 0.001

B > A, C

Ìý

CG

29.7 ±â¶Ä‰3.2

29.5 ±â¶Ä‰3.7

28.9 ±â¶Ä‰3.5

0.351

–

Ìý

P-valueb

0.248

0.054

0.751

ÌýÌý
  1. SD standard deviation, EG1 experimental group attending the multimodal psychomotor program (n = 16), EG2 experimental group attending the combined program: multimodal psychomotor program + WBV (n = 16), CG control group (n = 19)
  2. awithin-group comparisons
  3. bbetween-group comparisons
  4. <: significant differences within groups, p &±ô³Ù; 0.05