Dose–response relationship of treadmill perturbation-based balance training for improving reactive balance in older adults at risk of falling: results of the FEATURE randomized controlled pilot trial

Table 2 Effects of the two treadmill perturbation-based balance training protocols on reactive balance

Variable	T1	T2	T3	Time × Group		Time		Group
Variable	T1	T2	T3	p	η_p²	p	η_p²	p	η_p²
Reactive balance
STT-ACE, pt
6PBT	18.3 ± 1.0	18.0 ± 1.2	18.8 ± 1.3	0.779	0.008	0.562	0.018	0.011	0.172
2PBT	15.1 ± 1.0	14.7 ± 1.1	15.0 ± 1.3
STT-DSE, pt
6PBT	21.9 ± 1.2	21.7 ± 1.4	21.8 ± 1.4	0.686	0.011	0.566	0.018	0.022	0.149
2PBT	19.0 ± 1.3	18.2 ± 1.4	17.6 ± 1.4
DSTT, pt
6PBT	36.5 ± 6.8	64.8 ± 7.8^a	63.8 ± 7.6^a,b	0.027	0.101	0.008	0.132	0.068	0.097
2PBT	30.1 ± 6.8	46.5 ± 7.9^a	37.3 ± 7.6^b

Descriptive data given as estimated marginal means ± standard errors, with p-values calculated for repeated-measures ANOVA (within-subject factor = time [T1, T2, T3], between-subject factor = group [6PBT, 2PBT]), adjusted for treadmill experience and gait speed to account for stratification variables
T1 baseline assessment, T2 post-intervention assessment, T3 follow-up assessment, STT-ACE Stepping Threshold Test – all-step count evaluation, STT-DSE Stepping Threshold Test – direction-sensitive evaluation, 6PBT six-session perturbation-based balance training, 2PBT two-session perturbation-based balance training and four-session conventional treadmill training. Significant differences compared to ^aT1 or ^bthe other PBT group in Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests

ISSN: 1861-6909