Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 2, 2025
A Training Program Using an Agility Ladder for Community-Dwelling Older Adults
Published on: March 7, 2020
Effectiveness of a reablement training program for homecare staff on older adults' sedentary behavior: A cluster
Teuni H Rooijackers1,2, Gertrudis I J M Kempen1,2, G A Rixt Zijlstra1
1Department of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Background/Objectives:
Homecare staff often take over activities instead of "doing activities with" clients, thereby hampering clients from remaining active in daily life. Training and supporting staff to integrate reablement into their working practices may reduce clients' sedentary behavior and improve their independence. This study evaluated the effectiveness of the "Stay Active at Home" (SAaH) reablement training program for homecare staff on older homecare clients' sedentary behavior.
Design:
Cluster randomized controlled trial (c-RCT).
Setting:
Dutch homecare (10 nursing teams comprising a total of 313 staff members).
Participants:
264 clients (aged ≥65 years).
Intervention:
SAaH seeks to equip staff with knowledge, attitude, and skills on reablement, and to provide social and organizational support to implement reablement in homecare practice. SAaH consists of program meetings, practical assignments, and weekly newsletters over a 9-month period. The control group received no additional training and delivered care as usual.
Measurements:
Sedentary behavior (primary outcome) was measured using tri-axial wrist-worn accelerometers. Secondary outcomes included daily functioning (GARS), physical functioning (SPPB), psychological functioning (PHQ-9), and falls. Data were collected at baseline and at 12 months; data on falls were also collected at 6 months. Intention-to-treat analyses using mixed-effects linear and logistic regression were performed.
Results:
We found no statistically significant differences between the study groups for sedentary time expressed as daily minutes (adjusted mean difference: β 18.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] -22.4, 59.3), p = 0.374) and as proportion of wake/wear time (β 0.6 [95% CI -1.5, 2.6], p = 0.589) or for most secondary outcomes.
Conclusion:
Our c-RCT showed no evidence for the effectiveness of SAaH for all client outcomes. Refining SAaH, by adding components that intervene directly on homecare clients, may optimize the program and require further research. Additional research should explore the effectiveness of SAaH on behavioral determinants of clients and staff and cost-effectiveness.
