Background: Digital technologies such as wearables, websites and mobile applications are increasingly used in interventions targeting physical activity (PA). Increasing access to such technologies makes an attractive prospect for helping individuals of low socioeconomic status (SES) in becoming more active and healthier. However, little is known about their effectiveness in such populations. The aim of this systematic review was to explore whether digital interventions were effective in promoting PA in low SES populations, whether interventions are of equal benefit to higher SES individuals and whether the number or type of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) used in digital PA interventions was associated with intervention effects. Methods: A systematic search strategy was used to identify eligible studies from MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus and The Cochrane Library, published between January 1990 and March 2020. Randomised controlled trials, using digital technology as the primary intervention tool, and a control group that did not receive any digital technology-based intervention were included, provided they had a measure of PA as an outcome. Lastly, studies that did not have any measure of SES were excluded from the review. Risk of Bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2. Results: Of the 14,589 records initially identified, 19 studies were included in the final meta-analysis. Using random-effects models, in low SES there was a standardised mean difference (SMD (95%CI)) in PA between intervention and control groups of 0.06 (− 0.08,0.20). In high SES the SMD was 0.34 (0.22,0.45). Heterogeneity was modest in both low (I² = 0.18) and high (I² = 0) SES groups. The studies used a range of digital technologies and BCTs in their interventions, but the main findings were consistent across all of the sub-group analyses (digital interventions with a PA only focus, country, chronic disease, and duration of intervention) and there was no association with the number or type of BCTs. Discussion: Digital interventions targeting PA do not show equivalent efficacy for people of low and high SES. For people of low SES, there is no evidence that digital PA interventions are effective, irrespective of the behaviour change techniques used. In contrast, the same interventions in high SES participants do indicate effectiveness. To reduce inequalities and improve effectiveness, future development of digital interventions aimed at improving PA must make more effort to meet the needs of low SES people within the target population.

Background: Digital health interventions have the potential to improve health at a large scale globally by improving access to healthcare services and health-related information, but they tend to benefit more affluent and privileged groups more than those less privileged.

The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) is an objective tool for evaluating three domains (balance, repeated chair stands, and gait speed) of lower extremity physical function in older age. It is unclear how the associations between SPPB scores and health outcomes persist over time. The aim of this 14-year cohort study was to investigate associations between SPPB scores and health outcomes among participants aged 60+ years in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). The exposures were SPPB scores (total and domain-specific) at baseline (Wave 2). The outcomes were mobility impairments, difficulties in performing basic activities of daily living (ADL) or instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), and falls, measured at seven subsequent timepoints (Waves 3 to 9). The analyses involved linear and logistic multilevel regressions. After adjusting for potential confounders, a one-point increase in the total SPPB score was associated with a 0.13 (95% CI: −0.16, −0.10) decrease in mobility impairment, a 0.06 (−0.08, −0.05) decrease in ADL disabilities, a 0.06 (−0.07, −0.04) decrease in IADL disabilities, and 8% (0.90, 0.95) lower odds of falling (averaged across all follow-ups). Associations between the SPPB domains and health outcomes were more varied. The SPPB may be a useful measure for identifying older adults at a high risk of adverse outcomes.

The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility and acceptability of remotely delivered, home-based exercise programs on physical function and well-being in self-isolating older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. In a four-arm randomized controlled trial, 63 participants (aged 65 years and older) were allocated to one of three home-based daily (2 × 10-min) exercise interventions (exercise snacking, tai chi snacking, and combination) or control (UK National Health Service Web pages). Functional assessments were conducted via video call at baseline and 4-week follow-up. A web-based survey assessed the acceptability of each exercise program and secondary psychological/well-being outcomes. Ecological momentary assessment data, collected in Weeks 1 and 4, explored feeling states as antecedents and consequences of exercise. All intervention groups saw increased physical function at follow-up and displayed good adherence with exercise snacking considered the most acceptable program. Multilevel models revealed reciprocal associations between feelings of energy and exercise engagement. Further studies are needed with larger, more diverse demographic samples.

Maintaining physical function is important for independence and frailty prevention in later life, but very few older adults meet exercise recommendations. Previous studies found that 4-week 'exercise and Tai-chi snacking' as a viable alternative to traditional exercise is acceptable to healthy older adults. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of a 12-week progressive exercise and Tai-chi snacking programme on physical function and psychological outcomes in pre-frail older adults. Randomised controlled trial. Community-dwelling older adults. 90 older adults with impaired strength and balance were recruited. Participants were randomly allocated to an intervention or waitlist control group. A 12-week progressive exercise and Tai-chi snacking programme. Physical function (the short physical performance battery (SPPB), single-leg balance test and sit-to-stand test) was remotely measured at participants' homes via video calls at baseline, 4-, 8-, and 12-weeks. The self-reported psychological outcomes were also assessed every 4 weeks using online questionnaires. A subset of 40 participants also completed in-person functional assessments, and 26 intervention participants underwent semi-structured interviews to feedback on their experiences. The 12-week progressive home-based exercise and Tai-chi snacking improved SPPB strength (estimated mean difference in week 4: 1.05; week 8: 0.79; and week 12: 0.79) and balance (estimated mean difference in week 4: 0.71; week 8: 0.57; and week 12: 0.65) at each timepoint compared to control group. Timed-up-and-go (estimated mean difference in week 4: 1.94; week 8: 1.58; and week 12: 1.1) and total SPPB scores (estimated mean difference in week 4: 2.24; week 8: 1.79; and week 12: 1.76) were also better in the intervention group compared to the control group in lab subset participants. Based on the qualitative findings, Participants found the programme accessible and beneficial, making it suitable for older adults and increasing self-efficacy in physical activities. The home-based exercise and Tai-chi snacking programme significantly improved lower extremity strength, balance, and mobility in pre-frail older adults. This programme is considered to be a beneficial, acceptable and easy implemented physical function intervention.

Background: Finding innovative yet feasible ways of preventing physical and cognitive decline in those at risk is a critical global challenge, with exercise being championed as a key precursor to robust health in later life. Exercise snacking, here defined as short bouts of sporadic [muscle-strengthening] exercise, is one such strategy designed to overcome typical participation barriers observed in older adults. This study examined the acceptability of exercise snacking amongst pre-frail older adults and explored the efficacy of this approach in improving physical function. Methods: In this single group design, 21 pre-frail outpatients with mild-cognitive impairment were recruited from a UK memory clinic. To be eligible, participants were aged ≥ 65-years who scored 3–8 (inclusive) on the short physical performance battery (SPPB) and were not regularly engaging in sport or exercise. Participants completed a 28-day, twice daily, exercise snacking intervention, consisting of five muscle-strengthening exercises, with the aim being to complete as many repetitions as possible of each exercise in a minute. Acceptability of the intervention was measured quantitatively and qualitatively using a survey and topic guide informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Pre- and post-intervention physical function was measured using the SPPB, timed up-and-go (TUG), and 60s standing balance and sit-to-stand tests. Results: Eighteen participants provided follow-up data and showed 85% adherence to the exercise snacking intervention, measured as the proportion of all sessions completed out of a possible 56. Participants rated the intervention as highly acceptable (4.6/5) suggesting it supported their self-efficacy (4.3/5) was enjoyable (4.1/5) and had a low burden (2.1/5). Qualitative findings suggested the ease of use, flexibility of the programme, and perceived effectiveness was important, and particularly useful for non-exercisers. Changes in SPPB score (8(1) vs. 9(3), p < 0.01), TUG (11.32(4.02) vs. 9.18(5.25) seconds, p < 0.01) and in the 60-second sit-to-stand test (17 ± 5 vs. 23 ± 7 repetitions, p < 0.01) were seen between baseline and follow-up. Conclusions: Exercise snacking is an acceptable and potentially efficacious format of exercise for pre-frail memory clinic attendees who are at heightened risk of falling and frailty. Large scale randomised controlled trials are required to confirm whether exercise snacking is effective in the short and long term. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05439252 (30/06/2022)