Background Impaired gait adaptability is one of the major causes of falls among older adults by producing inappropriate gait adjustments in cluttered environments. Training programs designed to improve gait adaptability behavior in a systemic approach may prevent falls in older adults. Recently, the technology of virtual reality has appeared as a relevant gait training tool based on its training implementation potential. The present study was designed to compare the effectiveness of a virtual reality gait training program (VR group) for improving gait adaptability behavior and thus, reducing the risk of falls relative to a conventional training program of Nordic walkway (NW group). We hypothesize that the virtual reality gait training program will lead to greater gait adaptability improvements. Methods The protocol describes a randomized controlled trial with pre-tests, post-tests, retention tests and follow-up. Forty healthy independent living community dweller participants (65-80 years) will be allocated, after a general medical examination, to the VR or the NW group for a training program of six weeks. Primary outcome related to gait adaptability capacities and acceptance of the virtual reality device will be assessed in pre- and post-intervention and one month after the completion of the training program (retention). A follow-up will be done during the 12 months after the completion of the gait training program. Discussion This study will demonstrate the relative relevance of a gait training program in virtual reality versus a conventional one for improving gait adaptability behavior in healthy older adults and thus preventing falls.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
40
They will negotiate (natural or virtual) obstacles such as avoiding a rock or crossing over a tree root, thus improving their gait adaptability capacities.
Institute of Movement Sciences
Marseille, France
Gait adaptability capacities
Gait adaptability capacities will be assessed by a specific gait test created to assess gait parameters during goal-directed tasks. Feet positions will be measured by a seven-meter-long portable pressure-sensitive walkway GaitRite® (CIR Systems, Inc., Franklyn, NY, USA) in the real world. Firstly, participants will be instructed to walk at a normal pace on the walkway. The average preferred gait speed, step length, and step duration (with their variabilities) will be calculated over 6 trials. Afterwards, physical obstacles will be placed on the walkway. Participants will perform 3 different locomotor tasks: simple locomotor pointing, crossing-over, and stepping-over tasks (see Figure 4). They will perform 10 trials of each goal-directed task. By recording successive feet positions in relation to the obstacles, gait adaptability behavior will be analyzed through performance, inter-trials and trial-by-trial analyses.
Time frame: Pre-intervention (week 1)
Gait adaptability capacities
Gait adaptability capacities will be assessed by a specific gait test created to assess gait parameters during goal-directed tasks. Feet positions will be measured by a seven-meter-long portable pressure-sensitive walkway GaitRite® (CIR Systems, Inc., Franklyn, NY, USA) in the real world. Firstly, participants will be instructed to walk at a normal pace on the walkway. The average preferred gait speed, step length, and step duration (with their variabilities) will be calculated over 6 trials. Afterwards, physical obstacles will be placed on the walkway. Participants will perform 3 different locomotor tasks: simple locomotor pointing, crossing-over, and stepping-over tasks (see Figure 4). They will perform 10 trials of each goal-directed task. By recording successive feet positions in relation to the obstacles, gait adaptability behavior will be analyzed through performance, inter-trials and trial-by-trial analyses.
Time frame: Post-intervention (week 8)
Gait adaptability capacities
Gait adaptability capacities will be assessed by a specific gait test created to assess gait parameters during goal-directed tasks. Feet positions will be measured by a seven-meter-long portable pressure-sensitive walkway GaitRite® (CIR Systems, Inc., Franklyn, NY, USA) in the real world. Firstly, participants will be instructed to walk at a normal pace on the walkway. The average preferred gait speed, step length, and step duration (with their variabilities) will be calculated over 6 trials. Afterwards, physical obstacles will be placed on the walkway. Participants will perform 3 different locomotor tasks: simple locomotor pointing, crossing-over, and stepping-over tasks (see Figure 4). They will perform 10 trials of each goal-directed task. By recording successive feet positions in relation to the obstacles, gait adaptability behavior will be analyzed through performance, inter-trials and trial-by-trial analyses.
Time frame: Retention (week 12)
Acceptance of the head-mounted device
For the VR group only, VR-HMD acceptance before and after use will be assessed using the Technology Acceptance Model. According to this model, intention to use a technology is positively predicted by its perceived usefulness and its perceived ease of use. VR-HMD acceptance will be assessed through four variables: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, perceived enjoyment, and intention to use. (12 items with a 1-10 Likert scale; a higher score means a better outcome)
Time frame: Pre-intervention (week 1)
Acceptance of the head-mounted device
For the VR group only, VR-HMD acceptance before and after use will be assessed using the Technology Acceptance Model. According to this model, intention to use a technology is positively predicted by its perceived usefulness and its perceived ease of use. VR-HMD acceptance will be assessed through four variables: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, perceived enjoyment, and intention to use. (12 items with a 1-10 Likert scale; a higher score means a better outcome)
Time frame: Post-intervention (week 8)
Mobility
Mobility evaluation will be assessed with the Timed Up-and-Go (TUG) test (performance in s).
Time frame: Pre-intervention (week 1)
Mobility
Mobility evaluation will be assessed with the Timed Up-and-Go (TUG) test (performance in s).
Time frame: Post-intervention (week 8)
Mobility
Mobility evaluation will be assessed with the Timed Up-and-Go (TUG) test (performance in s).
Time frame: Retention (week 12)
Balance
Balance evaluation will be assessed with the Unipedal stance test (performance in s).
Time frame: Pre-intervention (week 1)
Balance
Balance evaluation will be assessed with the Unipedal stance test (performance in s).
Time frame: Post-intervention (week 8)
Balance
Balance evaluation will be assessed with the Unipedal stance test (performance in s).
Time frame: Retention (week 12)
Motivation
Motivation for physical activity will be assessed using the ÉMAPS questionnaire recently validated in French (18 items with a 1-7 Likert scale; a higher score means a better outcome)
Time frame: Pre-intervention (week 1)
Motivation
Motivation for physical activity will be assessed using the ÉMAPS questionnaire recently validated in French (18 items with a 1-7 Likert scale; a higher score means a better outcome)
Time frame: Post-intervention (week 8)
Motivation
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Motivation for physical activity will be assessed using the ÉMAPS questionnaire recently validated in French (18 items with a 1-7 Likert scale; a higher score means a better outcome)
Time frame: Retention (week 12)
Intrinsic motivation
Intrinsic motivation will be assessed using the Inventory Motivation inventory (IMI) questionnaire (22 items with a 1-7 Likert scale; a higher score means a better outcome)
Time frame: Pre-intervention (week 1)
Intrinsic motivation
Intrinsic motivation will be assessed using the Inventory Motivation inventory (IMI) questionnaire (18 items with a 1-7 Likert scale; a higher score means a better outcome)
Time frame: Post-intervention (week 8)
Intrinsic motivation
Intrinsic motivation will be assessed using the Inventory Motivation inventory (IMI) questionnaire (18 items with a 1-7 Likert scale; a higher score means a better outcome)
Time frame: Retention (week 12)
Fear of falling
Fear of falling will be assessed using the French version of the Modified-Falls Efficacy Scale (14 items with a 1-10 Likert scale; a higher score means a worse outcome)
Time frame: Pre-intervention (week 1)
Fear of falling
Fear of falling will be assessed using the French version of the Modified-Falls Efficacy Scale (14 items with a 1-10 Likert scale; a higher score means a worse outcome)
Time frame: Post-intervention (week 8)
Fear of falling
Fear of falling will be assessed using the French version of the Modified-Falls Efficacy Scale (14 items with a 1-10 Likert scale; a higher score means a worse outcome)
Time frame: Retention (week 12)