Pilot study assesses acceptability and program adherence of the PACE tool in geriatric patients, suggesting viable integration.
Background Physical inactivity accelerates the ageing process, leading functional incapacities and physical dependence. Although physical activity (PA) is known to counteract these effects, its integration as a prescription in healthcare is uncommon due to the lack of pragmatic solutions. Aims This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a pragmatic, unsupervised and adapted PA program in geriatric outpatient clinics. Methods In a 4-month pilot study, a 12-week adapted unsupervised PA program was prescribed using the Promote the Autonomy through exerCisE (PACE) tool. Feasibility was assessed by measuring patient inclusion, program adherence, healthcare professional workload and the tool usability score. Acceptability (Likert scale) was assessed through healthcare professional and patient satisfaction, as well as reported pain, falls and feelings of safety during program practice. Pre- and post-intervention tests were conducted to explore adaptations in physical performance adaptations. Results Out of the 250 eligible patients, 76 were included, with 67 consenting to the prescribed PA intervention. Ultimately, 37 participants completed the full 12-week program, averaging 3.3 weekly sessions. Notably, 70.2% adhered to the daily walking prescription. Physicians found the PACE tool ‘highly relevant’ and non-disruptive. Beliefs in PA benefits and kinesiologist support facilitated adoption, whilst existing pain and lack of motivation hindered adoption. No meaningful change in functional performance was noted post-intervention. Conclusion The results suggest that implementing PACE as a prescription exercise care regimen is feasible and acceptable to both healthcare professionals and patients. However, further randomised controlled trials are needed to evaluate its health effects compared to usual care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Manuel et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: