Author(s): DOWLING, C., KING, L., FITZPATRICK, P., OHAGAN, C., Institution: SOUTH EAST TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY CARLOW, Country: IRELAND, Abstract-ID: 1831

INTRODUCTION:
Resistance training (RT) improves physical function (PF) and strength in older adults. However, a dependency on health and exercise professionals may hinder older adults’ accessibility to RT. Replacing health and exercise professionals with peer volunteers may increase the accessibility of RT to older adults. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of peer supervised RT for improving PF and strength in older adults.
METHODS:
Stage 1: Six RT trained older adults (68 ± 4 years, 50% female) completed a 4-week programme of workshops to prepare them for supervising RT sessions. The programme was designed and delivered by the lead researchers and topics included anatomy, principles of RT, RT for older adults, RT safety, exercise instruction, intensity monitoring, and an externally accredited sports first aid qualification.
Stage 2: Ninety-eight community dwelling, healthy older adults (67 ± 4 years, 86% female) were randomly assigned to Peer Supervised RT (PEER), Professionally Supervised RT (PRO), or to a non-exercise Control (CON). Training groups completed 10 weeks of RT, training twice weekly. PF was assessed using the Timed Up-and-Go (TUG) and the 30 Second Chair Stand Test (30CST). Strength was measured using Handgrip dynamometry (HG). A two-way repeated measures ANOVA determined the effects of training and supervision type on physical outcomes.
RESULTS:
Drop-out rates were similar in PEER (22%) and PRO (25%). However, retention (defined as returning a completed training diary, attending > 50% of training sessions, and participating in all testing sessions) was higher in PRO (72%) than PEER (60%). Participants attended 80% of training sessions with no difference between groups. TUG improved in both PEER (8.24 ± 0.31s vs 7.00 ± 0.20s; p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.31) and PRO (7.70 ± 0.28s vs 6.78 ± 0.178s; p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.26), as did 30CST (PEER; 16.90 ± 0.85 stands vs 22.05 ± 1.00 stands; p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.56 , PRO; 16.65 ± 0.77 stands vs 23.30 ± 0.91 stands; p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.72) and HG (PEER; 27.10 ± 1.89kg vs 28.84 ± 1.83kg; p = 0.013, ηp2 = 0.10, PRO; 29.25 ± 1.713kg vs 33.28 ± 1.67kg; p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.41). There were no changes in any of the outcome measures in CON.
CONCLUSION:
A 4-week programme of workshops was sufficient at providing voluntary peers with the skills required to effectively supervise a 10-week RT intervention for older adults. Peer supervised RT was as effective at improving PF and strength as professionally supervised RT.