Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Balance board plus aerobic training (combined balance, strength and aerobics, high challenge balance)

From: The effect of interactive cognitive-motor training in reducing fall risk in older people: a systematic review

Study, sample size Intervention vs Control (content, dose) Sample characteristics Main findings
  Within-group Between-group
Cognitive-motor only
Agmon 2011 [43] N = 7 IG1: Static balance, strength, aerobics 12 wk, 3/wk, 30 min (5 sessions in first wk) Continuing care retirement; age 84 (5), 65+; impaired balance (BBS < 52 points); able to walk 4 m without assistive device; no cognitive impairment ty 8(Brief Screen for Cognitive Impairment ≤4); no musculoskeletal or neurologic disorder; no routine use of walking aids; adequate vision and hearing; + BBS pre 49 (2.1) post 53 (1.8), p = .017 Gait speed pre 1.04 (0.2) post 1.33 (0.84) m/s, p = .018  
CG: N/A
Maillot 2012 [51] N = 30 IG: Static balance, strength, aerobics 12 wk, 2/wk, 60 min Community-dwelling; age 73.5 (3.6), 65–78; self-rated health better than bad; sedentary; no visual or auditory impairment; no cognitive impairment (mean MMSE = 29 (1))   + Physical Wilk’s Λ = .31, F(10, 18) = 4.06, p = .005
TUG change −0.94 (0.62) t = 4.53, p < .01
CG: passive
STS change 2.73 (2.28), t = −4.91, p < .01
EF Wilk’s Λ = .19, F(6, 23) = 15.79, p = .001
TMT B-A change −15.42 (20.27), t = −2.12, p = .04
Stroop incongruent (number) change 9.13 (8.80), t = −3.412, p < .01
Processing speed Wilk’s Λ = .21, F(8, 21) = 9.75, p = .001
Cancellation (Number) change 10.00 (6.09), t = −5.423, p = .01
simple RT (ms) change −103 (93), t = 3.962, p < .01
choice RT (ms) change −104 (74), t = 3.082, p < .01
No Visuo-spatial
Williams 2010 [42] N = 15 IG: Static balance, strength, aerobics 12 wk, 2/wk, individual (most 15 min) 76% community-dwelling; age 76.7 (5.1) of n = 21, 70+; fall past year; no severe cognitive impairment (Abbreviated Mental Test ≥ 7); no wheelchair; 48% walking aid + BBS 4 wk pre 43.7 (9.5) post 48.1 (7.2), p = .02  
No POMA 4/12 wk, FES-I 4/12 wk, BBS 12 wk
CG: N/A (reported as CCT but only within group analysis)
Laver 2012 [37] N = 44 IG: Static balance, strength, aerobics → individual treatment needs Rehabilitation hospital; age 84.9 (4.5), 65+; no major cognitive impairment (MMSE ≥ 21); able to perform sit to stand without assistance; previously ambulating independently; adequate vision; various causes for hospitalisation + FIM pre 100.45 (16.71) post 108.64 (15.78), p < .001 + change in outcome based on number of sessions during hospital stay: IG improved on average 1.26 s/session on the TUG (p = 0.048) and performed better per session on the MBBS (p = 0.042) than CG
No mBBS, TUG, IADL, ABC
LOS, 5/wk, 25 min
No mBBS, TUG, SPPB, IADL , FIM, ABC
CG: Physio to maximise functional mobility (walking and transfers)
LOS, 5/wk, 25 min
Cognitive-motor plus other components
Mendes 2012 [31] N = 27 IG: Static balance, strength, aerobics + mobility 7 wk, 2/wk, 10 games/2 attempts per game + 30 min Community-dwelling; age 68.6 (6.4); PD (Hoehn and Yahr I and II); no other problems; no other neurological disorder; no orthopaedic problems; no cognitive impairment (MMSE ≥ 24); GDS (15 items) < 6; no visual or auditory impairment + FR 1 wk p = .003, 3mo p = .02  
CG: N/A
Pompeu 2012 [33] N = 32 IG: Static balance, strength, aerobics + strength and mobility 7 wk, 2/wk, 30 min + 30 min Age 60–85, 67.4 (8.1); idiopathic PD; Hoehn and Yahr stage 1–2; good visual and auditory acuity; no other neurological disorder or orthopaedic disorder; no cognitive impairment (MMSE ≥ 24), no depression (GDS-15 score <6) + BBS pre 52.9 (4.1) post 54.4 (2.2) follow-up54.1 (2.0), p < .005 No BBS, OLS, MOCA, DT
OLS EO pre 23.4 (22.0) post 32.9 (22.6) follow-up 31.2 (23.1), p < .01
CG: balance + strength and mobility 7 wk, 2/wk, 30 min + 30 min
MOCA pre 20.6 (4.5) post 22.2 (4.5) follow-up 21.8 (4.5), p < .001
No OLS EC, DT
Rendon 2012 [54] N = 40 IG: WBB balance + strength plus cycling 6 wk, 3/wk, 35-45 min Outpatient clinic; community-dwelling; age 60–95, 84.5 (5.3); able to participate in physical activity for 45–60 min; self-reported normal vision; no orthopaedic, neurological or circulatory disorders that prevent participation; 15% walking aids; No participant was able to complete the entire series of exercises without the use of the assistive device at least one time   + TUG p = .038
CG: passive ABC p = .038
No Depression
Chao 2013 [65] N = 7 IG: Static balance, strength, aerobics + health education and self-efficacy 8 wk, 2/wk, 30 min + 30 min Assisted living facility; age 80–94; 65+; 86 (5); able to ambulate with or without an assistive device; able to understand instructions; medically stable; no contraindications for exercise; n = 3 cognitive deficit; + BBS pre40.9 (8.5) post 45.1 (6.3), p = .017  
TUG pre19.4 (5.5) post 15.8 (5.1), p = .063
CG: N/A FES pre31.3 (15.7) post 23.6 (14.1), p = .058
  1. IG intervention group, CG control group, wk week, LOS length of stay, WBB wii balance board, BBS Berg Balance Scale, MMSE, Minimental State Examination, PD Parkinson’s Disease, GDS Geriatric Depression Scale, TUG Timed up and go test, STS Sit-to-stand test, EF executive function, RT reaction time, POMA Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment, FIM Functional Independence Measure, mBBS modified Berg Balance Scale, IADL Instrumental Activities of Daily living, ABC Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale, FR Functional Reach test, mo month, OLS One leg stance test, MOCA Montreal Cognitive Assessment, EO eyes open, EC eyes closed, DT dual task, FES Falls-efficacy Scale.