This story focuses on a study showing that elderly persons recovering from a disability get back to normal 25 percent sooner if they participate in a program of physical activity including “150 minutes of aerobic activity as well as strength, flexibility and balance training” per week. It points out that “walking was the cornerstone of the program.”
While it described the program in helpful terms, the story was light on the study’s specific findings, and seemed to assume that all people in this age group would see comparable results. Also, we would have been more satisfied if the story had mentioned early on that people in this age group should consult with their physicians before undertaking any kind of exercise program.
The story points out that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say that “just 28 percent of those 75 and up meet the recommendation for aerobic activity, and only 8 percent also did the suggested amount of strength training.” It says that too many of the elderly are sedentary, believing they’ve earned a focus on relaxation. But this and many other studies outline numerous health benefits from exercise and physical activity, even among the elderly, assuming their physical status is up for it. Physicians should help their patients decide what kind of physical program they should undertake, and as the story shows, even regular walking can be very helpful.
We’ll rate this category as non-applicable since the thrust of the story and the project it reports about is for elderly persons to adopt a routine of physical activity, the core of which is walking, which costs nothing. Certainly some costs are possible, say if for example a gym membership was desired, but neither the study or the story recommended that. Simple walking seemed to net ample positive results.
While quantification was minimal in this story, we’ll rate it barely satisfactory since it states those participating in the physical activity part of the study “cut the amount of time that people spent with a “major mobility disability” — defined as being unable to walk a quarter mile — by 25 percent compared to the education program.” But 25% of what?
It also stated that, “Previous findings from the same study showed that the exercise program lowered the risk of becoming disabled in the first place; this one showed that it sped recovery from an episode of disability and lowered the risk of subsequent episodes.” However, it failed to explain how much that risk was lowered, or whether it was an absolute risk or a relative risk. Statements offered by others in the story said that “people who engage in physical activity have a lower risk for heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers, depression, cognitive impairment and functional decline,” but gave no measures of how much those risks were lowered.
This story basically recommends physical activity for the elderly, which most experts would support. But the study in question focused on “sedentary people between 70 and 89 years old who had some functional limitations, but who could walk about a quarter of a mile in 15 minutes or less, unassisted by another person or a walker. (Canes were OK.)” There is obviously a great deal of variation in a population that broad and many included in that age bracket may also have balance, pain or stability issues that might preclude jumping into a similar program. We would have been happier if the story focused early on any new program of physical activity being clearly linked to an initial consult with the person’s physician. While the story does mention at the end that the authors of an accompanying editorial advised physicians that, “Prescribing exercise may be just as important as prescribing medications — perhaps even more important in some cases,” that seemed insufficient compared to the consequences of physical-activity-induced injury among the elderly.
As mentioned before, the story showed that the physical activity program “sped recovery from an episode of disability and lowered the risk of subsequent episodes” by 25 percent. It also explains that the study itself followed 1,600 participants for about 2.7 years — a considerable length of time for such a study. But that’s really the extent of the information offered. It describes participants only as being “sedentary” without defining the extent of that state. Nor does it give any information about the strength or endurance of the participants at the beginning and at the end of the study, indications that might help readers place themselves in a comparable continuum. It doesn’t even provide a gender breakdown of the participants although we know there are gender differences in stress and exercise among the aged. The story, while informative, deserved more specific information.
The story quotes an independent source, and doesn’t appear to have missed any conflicts of interest.
The most likely alternative is a rehab program that would incorporate many of the same elements as the study protocol.
Since walking and physical activity are available to all capable of such exercise, there is no question about availability here.
Yes, the story establishes novelty this way:
“Previous research has suggested that exercise can improve memory and reverse muscle loss in older adults, among other benefits.” and “Previous findings from the same study showed that the exercise program lowered the risk of becoming disabled in the first place; this one showed that it sped recovery from an episode of disability and lowered the risk of subsequent episodes.”
There is no evidence that this story relied on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Even when stories get the facts right, they often fail to provide crucial context and caveats that would help audiences make sense of the news — or lack thereof, says @garyschwitzer of @HealthNewsRevu https://t.co/b7YO2fYt0a
Why fact-checking is not enough to prevent the spread of misleading health care news...@HealthNewsRevu https://t.co/fzC2JbDYGV
Simply fact-checking an article "fails to capture questions of nuance and context that arise – or should arise – whenever evaluating medical evidence." https://t.co/HrYkGj12q1
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like