Skip to main content

Table 4 Feasibility and acceptability of the perturbation-based treadmill training

From: 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

Variable

6PBT (n = 18)

2PBT (n = 18)

p

Dropouts (total study period), n

4 (22.2)

5 (27.8)

> 0.999

Dropouts (intervention period), n

2 (11.1)

1 (5.6)

> 0.999

Adherence to PBT sessions, %a

100 [96.5–100.0]

100 [64.3–100.0]

0.505

Perturbations received, na

221 [157.0–240.0]

78 [34.5–80.0]

< 0.001

Proportion of planned perturbations, %a

91.9 [67.5–100.0]

90.0 [43.1–100.0]

0.794

Acceptability, pt

26.8 ± 4.2

28.0 ± 5.7

0.474

  1. Descriptive data given as n (%), median [interquartile range], and mean ± standard deviation
  2. P-values calculated for Fisher’s exact tests (dropouts), Mann–Whitney U tests (adherence, perturbations received, proportion of planned perturbations), or t-tests for independent samples (acceptability)
  3. 6PBT six-session perturbation-based balance training, 2PBT two-session perturbation-based balance training and four-session conventional treadmill training
  4. aParticipants who dropped out after the baseline assessment and before starting the intervention (n = 4) were recorded as having 0% adherence to PBT sessions and receiving 0 perturbations