Eligibility Training Interventions

Aging is an inevitable condition in one’s life, and with that comes limitations in range motion, and functional abilities of the body. There are multiple studies dedicated to this matter, one of which is a systematic review by Liza Stathokostas, Robert M. D. Little, A. A. Vandervoort, and Donald H. Paterson called: Flexibility Training and Functional Ability in Older Adults. This research was conducted to test how flexibility-training interventions can maintain or improve functional abilities in healthy adults over the age of 65 years. As this research was exploratory, a hypothesis was not stated.
According to Stathokostat et al., in this study there were 1127 participants, of whom 841 were female, and 286 were male. The participants’ ages ranged from 65 years to 88 years old. An electronic literature on five databases was researched for intervention studies, which related to training interventions, flexibility, aging, and functional results. After the articles were evaluated for relevance, 22 studies were selected. Out of the 22 studies, twenty were based on community-based populations and two on individuals in assisted-living homes. The exclusions consisted of any participants who had any neurological symptoms, or used any medication that may have affected their vision or balance, which would
affect their daily lives. Some of the inclusions consisted of participants who were 65 or older, healthy participants, but not limited to those with arthritis or osteoarthritis.
The tests conducted in this research included the flexibility test and the functional measures. Flexibility-training programs were used to improve range of motion (ROM) in major muscle groups. Functional results were tests or measures that were designed to demonstrate capabilities for several levels of daily activities that might assist in maintaining independence in older adults. The flexibility tests included the chair stand, picking up a penny, putting-on and taking-off a coat, and the Romberg balance test. Functional measures included lift-and-reach, sit-to-stand, sit-and-reach, self-rated physical performance, self-paced and fast-paced walk tests, and stair climbing (Stathokostas, Little, Vandervoort, & Paterson, 2012).
The results of these studies suggested that flexibility-specific interventions could have had effects on ROM outcomes, however there were conflicting information regarding both the relationship between flexibility interventions and functional outcomes or daily functioning. There was an increase in flexibility-related results in several studies, however it lacked substantial changes in functionality. Out of of 22 studies, seven showed positive functional results, six negative, and ten showed no functional outcome. There were no clear differences between the studies with positive, negative, or functional results. The limitations discussed by the authors included the absence of well-conducted studies that focused on flexibility in older adults, insufficiency in the flexibility protocols used, and the functional results measured and noted. The strengths included having a large number of participants and studies, which were conducted prior to this review.

Although this paper indicates that flexibility-training interventions in older adults were often successful, definite recommendations regarding flexibility training and functional outcomes for older adults remain unsure.
This review suggests for future studies to address issues such as the relationship between flexibility training interventions and functional outcomes, and the relationship between improved flexibility and daily functioning and health benefits. In addition, it was suggested that there was no risk in including the flexibility exercises into stretching routines. This study concluded that more research would be needed in the future in this subject
matter. There was a large degree of inconsistent outcomes due to the nature of the subjects in this research. This study was reviewing a broad range muscle groups. It may be beneficial to focus on one joint, rather than all joints in the body. In future studies, a smaller range in the age group may impact the clarity of the results. Gender specific studies may additionally benefit consistent results. Since the problematic joints in men and women could differ, and older women typically suffer from low bone density. In general, more focused studies may conclude better results.