AzTrials
AzTrials

Frail ElderlyNCT02696382

Improving Function in Older Veterans With Hospital-Associated Deconditioning

A study testing Progressive High Intensity Therapy (PHIT) in people with Frail Elderly and Homebound Persons, run by VA Office of Research and Development at 1 site in United States.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The investigators plan to test an innovative, home-based, short duration, high intensity exercise program designed for application in the immediate post-hospitalization period in older Veterans. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 55 to 99 years
Conditions the study is for
Frail Elderly, Homebound Persons
What is being tested?
Progressive High Intensity Therapy (PHIT)
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
240 participants
Where
1 siteUnited States
Study dates
1 Apr 2016to 8 Oct 2021
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 55 to 99 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Recent hospitalization or period of deconditioning
  • Veteran Status
  • Referred to or eligible for home health physical therapy
  • Have at least 3 comorbid conditions including: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), pneumonia, hypertension, hernia, heart disease, spinal stenosis, atrial fibrillation, post-op bowel surgery, gastrointestinal bleed, chronic ulcerative wounds, depression/ mental health, post-op pancreatic surgery, hypercholesterolemia, dehydration, hypo/hyperthyroid, congestive heart failure, urinary tract infection, diabetes, irritable bowel syndrome, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, peripheral artery disease, syncope, renal failure-no dialysis
  • Be ambulatory without human assistance prior to hospitalization

Who cannot join

  • Acute lower extremity fracture with weight-bearing restriction
  • Elective joint replacement surgery
  • Lower extremity amputation
  • Acute cardiac surgery
  • Terminal illness
  • Cancer
Show all 12Show fewer
  • Alzheimer's disease
  • Deep vein thrombosis
  • Recent stroke
  • Degenerative neurological conditions
  • Gait speed slower than 0.3 m/s or >1.0 meters/second
  • Inability to walk 10 feet without human assistance --History of illegal substance use

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

United States1 site
  • Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center, Aurora, CO

    Aurora, Colorado, 80045

Other trials in United States

About this study

Official title: Improving Function in Older Veterans With Hospital-associated Deconditioning

The investigators plan to test an innovative, home-based, short duration, high intensity exercise program designed for application in the immediate post-hospitalization period in older Veterans. Preliminary data suggest a more intensive approach to physical therapy in older adults after hospitalization is safe and maximizes mobility more than usual care. The Veterans participating in the high intensity exercise program will receive therapy utilizing higher resistance exercises. Outcomes from this group will be compared to data collected from the patients receiving standard, lower resistance therapies.

Read the detailed description

Hospital associated deconditioning is a common and profound contributor to functional decline in older adults. Skeletal muscle weakness and atrophy are commonly observed in older adults with deconditioning after a hospitalizations, leading to chronic functional deficits. This is especially concerning for elderly Veterans, a population who tends to suffer from more chronic conditions and have decreased physical function than the general older adult population. Therefore, Veterans may be at even higher risk for developing disability in activities of daily living after hospitalization and be homebound. Home health physical therapy may be the ideal venue for addressing this functional decline as around 3 million older adults receive home health services following hospital discharge. These services, however, tend to be low intensity and do not appear to adequately address deficits in function or performance of home and community mobility. To address these concerns, the investigators have developed and tested an innovative, short-duration, home-based, high intensity exercise program designed for application immediately following hospitalization. This protocol will dose twelve therapy visits over the course of 30 days to determine whether visit frontloading has any effect on outcomes. The investigators are using a series of high resistance therapy exercises following acute hospitalization to determine if progressive high intensity therapy sustainability improves physical function more than standard home health physical therapy after an acute hospitalization in older Veterans. Outcomes will spotlight physical function, community mobility, Activities of Daily Living, quality of life, and cognition.

Being tested
Progressive High Intensity Therapy (PHIT), Usual Care (UC)
Keywords
Veterans, Progressive High Intensity Physical Therapy, Gait Speed, Acute Hospitalization, Hospital Associated Deconditioning

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Progressive High Intensity Therapy (PHIT)Behavioural

    Participants in the "Progressive High Intensity Therapy" (PHIT) group will receive high intensity physical therapy following discharge from acute hospitalization. The activities of training will include progressive resistance training, multi-planar motor control and gait exercises, and high intensity activities of daily living training. Like the Usual Care group, the PHIT participants will receive 12 intervention visits over 4 weeks (3 visits per week). Participants will also receive a standardized home exercise program.

  • Usual Care (UC)Behavioural

    Participants in the "Usual Care" group will receive standard physical therapy following discharge from acute hospitalization. The activities of therapy will include basic strength training, single-planar motor control and gait exercises, and activities of daily living training. Participants will receive 12 intervention visits over 4 weeks (3 visits per week). Participants will also receive a standardized home exercise program.

Study groups in NCT02696382
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Usual Care (UC)Active comparatorParticipants in the "Usual Care" (UC) group will receive standard, low-intensity physical therapy following discharge from acute hospitalization.
Receives: Behavioral: Usual Care (UC)
Progressive High Intensity TherapyExperimentalParticipants in the "Progressive High Intensity Therapy" (PHIT) group will receive high intensity physical therapy following discharge from acute hospitalization.
Receives: Behavioral: Progressive High Intensity Therapy (PHIT)

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Change in Self-Selected Walking Speed

    Will be assessed at the subject's self selected speed for each participant over 4 meters. Faster walking indicates capacity for performance of certain activities (e.g. crossing a street before the light changes).

    Measured: From baseline to 60 days post-baseline

Secondary outcomes (34)
  1. Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB)

    The SPPB is a well-accepted global measure of lower extremity function which consists of a composite measure including walking speed, chair stands, and balance. It is a strong predictor of disability, institutionalization, and morbidity in older adults. The SPPB is comprised of 3 tasks: a hierarchical standing balance test (side-by-side, semi-tandem, and tandem), a 4-meter usual gait speed, and a 5-time sit-to-stand from a standardized chair. Each subtask is scored (based on time) from 0-4 points and then summarized into a total score of 0-12 points, where 12 points represents the highest performance.

    Measured: Baseline

  2. Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB)

    The SPPB is a well-accepted global measure of lower extremity function which consists of a composite measure including walking speed, chair stands, and balance. It is a strong predictor of disability, institutionalization, and morbidity in older adults. The SPPB is comprised of 3 tasks: a hierarchical standing balance test (side-by-side, semi-tandem, and tandem), a 4-meter usual gait speed, and a 5-time sit-to-stand from a standardized chair. Each subtask is scored (based on time) from 0-4 points and then summarized into a total score of 0-12 points, where 12 points represents the highest performance.

    Measured: 30 Days

  3. Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB)

    The SPPB is a well-accepted global measure of lower extremity function which consists of a composite measure including walking speed, chair stands, and balance. It is a strong predictor of disability, institutionalization, and morbidity in older adults. The SPPB is comprised of 3 tasks: a hierarchical standing balance test (side-by-side, semi-tandem, and tandem), a 4-meter usual gait speed, and a 5-time sit-to-stand from a standardized chair. Each subtask is scored (based on time) from 0-4 points and then summarized into a total score of 0-12 points, where 12 points represents the highest performance.

    Measured: 60 Days

  4. Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB)

    The SPPB is a well-accepted global measure of lower extremity function which consists of a composite measure including walking speed, chair stands, and balance. It is a strong predictor of disability, institutionalization, and morbidity in older adults. The SPPB is comprised of 3 tasks: a hierarchical standing balance test (side-by-side, semi-tandem, and tandem), a 4-meter usual gait speed, and a 5-time sit-to-stand from a standardized chair. Each subtask is scored (based on time) from 0-4 points and then summarized into a total score of 0-12 points, where 12 points represents the highest performance.

    Measured: 90 Days

  5. Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB)

    The SPPB is a well-accepted global measure of lower extremity function which consists of a composite measure including walking speed, chair stands, and balance. It is a strong predictor of disability, institutionalization, and morbidity in older adults. The SPPB is comprised of 3 tasks: a hierarchical standing balance test (side-by-side, semi-tandem, and tandem), a 4-meter usual gait speed, and a 5-time sit-to-stand from a standardized chair. Each subtask is scored (based on time) from 0-4 points and then summarized into a total score of 0-12 points, where 12 points represents the highest performance.

    Measured: 180 Days

  6. Timed-Up-And-Go Test

    The TUG measures the time it takes a patient to rise from an arm chair (seat height of 46 cm), walk 3 m, turn and return to sitting in the same chair without physical assistance. This test has excellent inter-rater (ICC=0.99) and intra-rater reliability (ICC=0.99), as measured in a group of 60 functionally disabled older adults (mean age 80 years). Faster times indicate a better outcome.

    Measured: Baseline

  7. Timed-Up-And-Go Test

    The TUG measures the time it takes a patient to rise from an arm chair (seat height of 46 cm), walk 3 m, turn and return to sitting in the same chair without physical assistance. This test has excellent inter-rater (ICC=0.99) and intra-rater reliability (ICC=0.99), as measured in a group of 60 functionally disabled older adults (mean age 80 years). Faster times indicate a better outcome.

    Measured: 30 Days

  8. Timed-Up-And-Go Test

    The TUG measures the time it takes a patient to rise from an arm chair (seat height of 46 cm), walk 3 m, turn and return to sitting in the same chair without physical assistance. This test has excellent inter-rater (ICC=0.99) and intra-rater reliability (ICC=0.99), as measured in a group of 60 functionally disabled older adults (mean age 80 years). Faster times indicate a better outcome.

    Measured: 60 Days

  9. Timed-Up-And-Go Test

    The TUG measures the time it takes a patient to rise from an arm chair (seat height of 46 cm), walk 3 m, turn and return to sitting in the same chair without physical assistance. This test has excellent inter-rater (ICC=0.99) and intra-rater reliability (ICC=0.99), as measured in a group of 60 functionally disabled older adults (mean age 80 years). Faster times indicate a better outcome.

    Measured: 90 Days

  10. Timed-Up-And-Go Test

    The TUG measures the time it takes a patient to rise from an arm chair (seat height of 46 cm), walk 3 m, turn and return to sitting in the same chair without physical assistance. This test has excellent inter-rater (ICC=0.99) and intra-rater reliability (ICC=0.99), as measured in a group of 60 functionally disabled older adults (mean age 80 years). Faster times indicate a better outcome.

    Measured: 180 Days

  11. Modified Physical Performance Test (mPPT)

    mPPT assesses 7 tasks. Based on the time it takes to complete each task, a score from 0 (unable to complete) to 4 (performed quickly and easily) is given for each item. The maximal score is 28 and includes tasks that involve upper and lower extremity function. Test-retest reliability for the modified PPT score is 0.96. The instrument is sensitive to change and has been used in exercise trials with frail elders.

    Measured: Baseline

  12. Modified Physical Performance Test (mPPT)

    mPPT assesses 7 tasks. Based on the time it takes to complete each task, a score from 0 (unable to complete) to 4 (performed quickly and easily) is given for each item. The maximal score is 28 and includes tasks that involve upper and lower extremity function. Test-retest reliability for the modified PPT score is 0.96. The instrument is sensitive to change and has been used in exercise trials with frail elders.

    Measured: 30 Days

  13. Modified Physical Performance Test (mPPT)

    mPPT assesses 7 tasks. Based on the time it takes to complete each task, a score from 0 (unable to complete) to 4 (performed quickly and easily) is given for each item. The maximal score is 28 and includes tasks that involve upper and lower extremity function. Test-retest reliability for the modified PPT score is 0.96. The instrument is sensitive to change and has been used in exercise trials with frail elders.

    Measured: 60 Days

  14. Modified Physical Performance Test (mPPT)

    mPPT assesses 7 tasks. Based on the time it takes to complete each task, a score from 0 (unable to complete) to 4 (performed quickly and easily) is given for each item. The maximal score is 28 and includes tasks that involve upper and lower extremity function. Test-retest reliability for the modified PPT score is 0.96. The instrument is sensitive to change and has been used in exercise trials with frail elders.

    Measured: 90 Days

  15. Modified Physical Performance Test (mPPT)

    mPPT assesses 7 tasks. Based on the time it takes to complete each task, a score from 0 (unable to complete) to 4 (performed quickly and easily) is given for each item. The maximal score is 28 and includes tasks that involve upper and lower extremity function. Test-retest reliability for the modified PPT score is 0.96. The instrument is sensitive to change and has been used in exercise trials with frail elders.

    Measured: 180 Days

  16. Lower Extremity Strength Via Hand-Held Dynamometry: Right Knee Extensor

    Quadriceps muscle strength was tested via hand-held dynamometry (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN), wherein higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome). Method established in previous work: The position of the dynamometer was held perpendicular to the limb segment toward which it was directed, and the plate of the dynamometer was placed in the same position on the tested limb each time. The tester manually stabilized the limb segment proximally and provided verbal and visual cues of the muscle contraction prior to the isometric test. Individuals were asked to maintain the maximum effort for 2-3 seconds, at which point the tester told them to stop. Strength for each muscle was tested until two maximal attempts were within 5% of each other, and the highest value, to the nearest tenth of a kg, was used in analysis.

    Measured: Baseline

  17. Lower Extremity Strength Via Hand-Held Dynamometry: Right Knee Extensor

    Quadriceps muscle strength was tested via hand-held dynamometry (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN), wherein higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome). Method established in previous work: The position of the dynamometer was held perpendicular to the limb segment toward which it was directed, and the plate of the dynamometer was placed in the same position on the tested limb each time. The tester manually stabilized the limb segment proximally and provided verbal and visual cues of the muscle contraction prior to the isometric test. Individuals were asked to maintain the maximum effort for 2-3 seconds, at which point the tester told them to stop. Strength for each muscle was tested until two maximal attempts were within 5% of each other, and the highest value, to the nearest tenth of a kg, was used in analysis.

    Measured: 30 Days

  18. Lower Extremity Strength Via Hand-Held Dynamometry: Right Knee Extensor

    Quadriceps muscle strength was tested via hand-held dynamometry (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN), wherein higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome). Method established in previous work: The position of the dynamometer was held perpendicular to the limb segment toward which it was directed, and the plate of the dynamometer was placed in the same position on the tested limb each time. The tester manually stabilized the limb segment proximally and provided verbal and visual cues of the muscle contraction prior to the isometric test. Individuals were asked to maintain the maximum effort for 2-3 seconds, at which point the tester told them to stop. Strength for each muscle was tested until two maximal attempts were within 5% of each other, and the highest value, to the nearest tenth of a kg, was used in analysis.

    Measured: 60 Days

  19. Lower Extremity Strength Via Hand-Held Dynamometry: Right Knee Extensor

    Quadriceps muscle strength was tested via hand-held dynamometry (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN), wherein higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome). Method established in previous work: The position of the dynamometer was held perpendicular to the limb segment toward which it was directed, and the plate of the dynamometer was placed in the same position on the tested limb each time. The tester manually stabilized the limb segment proximally and provided verbal and visual cues of the muscle contraction prior to the isometric test. Individuals were asked to maintain the maximum effort for 2-3 seconds, at which point the tester told them to stop. Strength for each muscle was tested until two maximal attempts were within 5% of each other, and the highest value, to the nearest tenth of a kg, was used in analysis.

    Measured: 90 Days

  20. Lower Extremity Strength Via Hand-Held Dynamometry: Right Knee Extensor

    Quadriceps muscle strength was tested via hand-held dynamometry (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN), wherein higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome). Method established in previous work: The position of the dynamometer was held perpendicular to the limb segment toward which it was directed, and the plate of the dynamometer was placed in the same position on the tested limb each time. The tester manually stabilized the limb segment proximally and provided verbal and visual cues of the muscle contraction prior to the isometric test. Individuals were asked to maintain the maximum effort for 2-3 seconds, at which point the tester told them to stop. Strength for each muscle was tested until two maximal attempts were within 5% of each other, and the highest value, to the nearest tenth of a kg, was used in analysis.

    Measured: 180 Days

  21. Lower Extremity Strength Via Hand-Held Dynamometry: Left Knee Extensor

    Quadriceps muscle strength was tested via hand-held dynamometry (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN), wherein higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome). Method established in previous work: The position of the dynamometer was held perpendicular to the limb segment toward which it was directed, and the plate of the dynamometer was placed in the same position on the tested limb each time. The tester manually stabilized the limb segment proximally and provided verbal and visual cues of the muscle contraction prior to the isometric test. Individuals were asked to maintain the maximum effort for 2-3 seconds, at which point the tester told them to stop. Strength for each muscle was tested until two maximal attempts were within 5% of each other, and the highest value, to the nearest tenth of a kg, was used in analysis.

    Measured: Baseline

  22. Lower Extremity Strength Via Hand-Held Dynamometry: Left Knee Extensor

    Quadriceps muscle strength was tested via hand-held dynamometry (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN), wherein higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome). Method established in previous work: The position of the dynamometer was held perpendicular to the limb segment toward which it was directed, and the plate of the dynamometer was placed in the same position on the tested limb each time. The tester manually stabilized the limb segment proximally and provided verbal and visual cues of the muscle contraction prior to the isometric test. Individuals were asked to maintain the maximum effort for 2-3 seconds, at which point the tester told them to stop. Strength for each muscle was tested until two maximal attempts were within 5% of each other, and the highest value, to the nearest tenth of a kg, was used in analysis.

    Measured: 30 Days

  23. Lower Extremity Strength Via Hand-Held Dynamometry: Left Knee Extensor

    Quadriceps muscle strength was tested via hand-held dynamometry (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN), wherein higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome). Method established in previous work: The position of the dynamometer was held perpendicular to the limb segment toward which it was directed, and the plate of the dynamometer was placed in the same position on the tested limb each time. The tester manually stabilized the limb segment proximally and provided verbal and visual cues of the muscle contraction prior to the isometric test. Individuals were asked to maintain the maximum effort for 2-3 seconds, at which point the tester told them to stop. Strength for each muscle was tested until two maximal attempts were within 5% of each other, and the highest value, to the nearest tenth of a kg, was used in analysis.

    Measured: 60 Days

  24. Lower Extremity Strength Via Hand-Held Dynamometry: Left Knee Extensor

    Quadriceps muscle strength was tested via hand-held dynamometry (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN), wherein higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome). Method established in previous work: The position of the dynamometer was held perpendicular to the limb segment toward which it was directed, and the plate of the dynamometer was placed in the same position on the tested limb each time. The tester manually stabilized the limb segment proximally and provided verbal and visual cues of the muscle contraction prior to the isometric test. Individuals were asked to maintain the maximum effort for 2-3 seconds, at which point the tester told them to stop. Strength for each muscle was tested until two maximal attempts were within 5% of each other, and the highest value, to the nearest tenth of a kg, was used in analysis.

    Measured: 90 Days

  25. Lower Extremity Strength Via Hand-Held Dynamometry: Left Knee Extensor

    Quadriceps muscle strength was tested via hand-held dynamometry (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN), wherein higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome). Method established in previous work: The position of the dynamometer was held perpendicular to the limb segment toward which it was directed, and the plate of the dynamometer was placed in the same position on the tested limb each time. The tester manually stabilized the limb segment proximally and provided verbal and visual cues of the muscle contraction prior to the isometric test. Individuals were asked to maintain the maximum effort for 2-3 seconds, at which point the tester told them to stop. Strength for each muscle was tested until two maximal attempts were within 5% of each other, and the highest value, to the nearest tenth of a kg, was used in analysis.

    Measured: 180 Days

  26. Grip Strength: Dominant Hand

    Grip strength was measured on the dominant hand using a hand dynamometer with the participant seated and elbow positioned at 90 degrees of flexion with the arm resting against the trunk. Maximal grip strength during a 3 second hold was measured for at least 2 trials and a 3rd trial was allowed if differences between trials were > 5%. Higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome).

    Measured: Baseline

  27. Grip Strength: Dominant Hand

    Grip strength was measured on the dominant hand using a hand dynamometer with the participant seated and elbow positioned at 90 degrees of flexion with the arm resting against the trunk. Maximal grip strength during a 3 second hold was measured for at least 2 trials and a 3rd trial was allowed if differences between trials were > 5%. Higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome).

    Measured: 30 Days

  28. Grip Strength: Dominant Hand

    Grip strength was measured on the dominant hand using a hand dynamometer with the participant seated and elbow positioned at 90 degrees of flexion with the arm resting against the trunk. Maximal grip strength during a 3 second hold was measured for at least 2 trials and a 3rd trial was allowed if differences between trials were > 5%. Higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome).

    Measured: 60 Days

  29. Grip Strength: Dominant Hand

    Grip strength was measured on the dominant hand using a hand dynamometer with the participant seated and elbow positioned at 90 degrees of flexion with the arm resting against the trunk. Maximal grip strength during a 3 second hold was measured for at least 2 trials and a 3rd trial was allowed if differences between trials were > 5%. Higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome).

    Measured: 90 Days

  30. Grip Strength: Dominant Hand

    Grip strength was measured on the dominant hand using a hand dynamometer with the participant seated and elbow positioned at 90 degrees of flexion with the arm resting against the trunk. Maximal grip strength during a 3 second hold was measured for at least 2 trials and a 3rd trial was allowed if differences between trials were > 5%. Higher numbers indicate greater strength (better outcome).

    Measured: 180 Days

  31. Self-Selected Walking Speed

    Will be assessed at the subject's self selected speed for each participant over 4 meters. Faster walking indicates capacity for performance of certain activities (e.g. crossing a street before the light changes).

    Measured: Baseline

  32. Self-Selected Walking Speed

    Will be assessed at the subject's self selected speed for each participant over 4 meters. Faster walking indicates capacity for performance of certain activities (e.g. crossing a street before the light changes).

    Measured: 30 Days

  33. Self-Selected Walking Speed

    Will be assessed at the subject's self selected speed for each participant over 4 meters. Faster walking indicates capacity for performance of certain activities (e.g. crossing a street before the light changes).

    Measured: 90 Days

  34. Self-Selected Walking Speed

    Will be assessed at the subject's self selected speed for each participant over 4 meters. Faster walking indicates capacity for performance of certain activities (e.g. crossing a street before the light changes).

    Measured: 180 Days

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted2 Mar 2016 (estimated)
  2. Study start1 Apr 2016
  3. Primary completion31 May 2021
  4. Study completion8 Oct 2021

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Single blind
Who is masked
Outcomes assessor
Enrolment
240 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT02696382
Sponsor's protocol ID
E1978-R
Other IDs
15-1571
Status last verified
Sep 2023
First submitted
19 Feb 2016
Last updated
1 Apr 2024
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No

Publications

  • Mangione KK, Lopopolo RB, Neff NP, Craik RL, Palombaro KM. Interventions used by physical therapists in home care for people after hip fracture. Phys Ther. 2008 Feb;88(2):199-210. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20070023. Epub 2007 Dec 4.

    PubMed 18056752
  • Falvey JR, Mangione KK, Stevens-Lapsley JE. Rethinking Hospital-Associated Deconditioning: Proposed Paradigm Shift. Phys Ther. 2015 Sep;95(9):1307-15. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20140511. Epub 2015 Apr 23.

    PubMed 25908526
  • Tinetti ME, Baker D, Gallo WT, Nanda A, Charpentier P, O'Leary J. Evaluation of restorative care vs usual care for older adults receiving an acute episode of home care. JAMA. 2002 Apr 24;287(16):2098-105. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.16.2098.

    PubMed 11966384
  • Andersen LL, Andersen CH, Mortensen OS, Poulsen OM, Bjornlund IB, Zebis MK. Muscle activation and perceived loading during rehabilitation exercises: comparison of dumbbells and elastic resistance. Phys Ther. 2010 Apr;90(4):538-49. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20090167. Epub 2010 Feb 4.

    PubMed 20133444
  • El Solh A, Pineda L, Bouquin P, Mankowski C. Determinants of short and long term functional recovery after hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia in the elderly: role of inflammatory markers. BMC Geriatr. 2006 Aug 9;6:12. doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-6-12.

    PubMed 16899118

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Progressive High Intensity Therapy (PHIT) in people with Frail Elderly and Homebound Persons, run by VA Office of Research and Development at 1 site in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 12 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 Apr 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 1 Apr 2024). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Change in Self-Selected Walking Speed (time frame: From baseline to 60 days post-baseline). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02696382, which also lists 5 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 1 Apr 2024; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 31 Oct 2026.

Free account

Keep searching with a free account

You’ve used your 3 free searches for this session. Log in or create a free AzTrials account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in