Effects of 12-Weeks of Home-Based Exercise Training on Physical and Cognitive Function of Older Adults: Randomized Trial Comparing Virtual Versus Minimal Supervision in the Context of the Covid-19 Pandemic in Brazil *

Headnote

ABSTRACT

Background

We investigated the effects of a 12-week home-based exercise program delivered with virtual or minimal supervision on the physical and cognitive function of community-dwelling older adults in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil.

Methods

The study was registered on the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials platform (code: RBR-8qby2wt). Thirty-eight older adults (81% female and 68±7 years old), non-disabled, and without cognitive impairment or dementia, were randomly assigned to a 12-week home-based exercise program: 1) virtual supervision (classes remotely delivered through video conference by trained staff), or 2) minimal supervision (once-weekly contact to touch base through standardized text messages). The participants initially performed two sets of 10 repetitions three times a week, with a 60-second interval. The volume and complexity of the exercises were progressively increased, (e.g., the number of sets increased to 3 and later to 4). At baseline and follow-up, we collected remote measurements of physical function (muscle strength and power, functional muscular fitness) and cognition (processing speed, inhibitory control, verbal fluency).

Results

Participants in the minimal supervision home-based exercise group significantly improved the Stroop test (-1.6 sec, 95% CI = -3.20; -0.09). No significant between-group differences were observed for physical and cognitive outcomes.

Conclusion

A home-based exercise program delivered with virtual or minimal supervision can produce similar effects, and may help to maintain physical and cognitive capabilities among healthy, high-functioning older adults who experienced mobility restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil.

Key words: home-based exercise, functional mobility, cognition, web-based intervention, aging

INTRODUCTION

Community-dwelling older adults experienced a 15-25% decrease in physical activity levels during the COVID-19 pandemic.(1,2) As well, it is also important to note that aging undermines muscle strength and power, functional mobility, flexibility,(3-5) cognitive function, and fear of falling.(6) These alterations have a negative impact on the indices of functional capacity, which have been associated with a higher risk of frailty, disability, and premature death.(7)

In the COVID-19 pandemic, home-based exercise (HBE) programs emerged as a feasible alternative to mitigate or improve daily function and mobility in the older population.(8-10) HBE programs commonly include functional exercises and can be delivered using different approaches including unsupervised, minimally supervised, or facilitated protocols.(11) However, a systematic review with meta-analysis showed that supervised exercise sessions yield superior results than unsupervised ones.(10) Supervision allows better training progression (e.g., volume and intensity) and participants' safe monitoring.(12,13) Emerging evidence suggests that even without direct supervision, HBE may effectively promote muscle strength and power gains, better postural balance,(10) and prevent mood and cognitive decline.(8,14)

Given the impossibility of professional monitoring of sessions during the pandemic, using technology may be a viable alternative. Virtual supervision via videoconferencing enables the execution of HBE programs with online supervision in real time. Furthermore, conducting remote HBE could enhance the adherence of older adults by minimizing barriers to the practice of physical activity during the COVID-19 pandemic. (15) With this in mind, the purpose of this study was to compare the effects of an HBE training program delivered with a virtual or minimal supervision approach on physical and cognitive function in communitydwelling older adults. We hypothesized that the supervised exercise program would yield more significant physical and cognitive gains in older adults.

METHODS

Study Design and Ethical Aspects

This is a randomized clinical trial with two parallel groups, with an allocation ratio of 1:1. The study received approval from the local Ethics and Research Committee (protocol no. 40759120.2.0000.9547), and signed informed consent was obtained from all participants. The trial protocol was prospectively registered on the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (REBEC) platform under the code RBR-8qby2wt. Trial reporting was prepared in accordance with Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) recommendations.

Participants were recruited from the community between June 2021 and January 2022 using several strategies, including social media platforms (e.g., Instagram, Facebook), local TV, and radio.

Participants and Eligibility

This study included nondisabled older adults aged 65 years and older who met the following inclusion criteria: (a) did not perform structured physical activity (e.g., progressive resistance training) in the previous six months; (b) having at least one electronic device with a frontal camera and internet access; (c) having adequate visual and auditory capacity to follow the training program; and (d) having support, if needed, from someone who could assist in the use of electronic devices in case of technical issues.

We excluded participants who had signs, symptoms, or health issues that would preclude their participation in home-based exercise, such as unstable coronary heart disease, angina pectoris, uncontrolled hypertension, diabetes, knee osteoarthritis resulting in severe functional impairment. Complementary exclusion criteria included not regularly using medications that could impair functional mobility and cognition (e.g., antiemetics or proton pump inhibitors)(16) and not achieving a minimum score of 19 points on the remote version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (M°CA).(17,18)

Randomization and Allocation of Participants

Participants were randomized (by a researcher not directly involved in recruitment or data collection) using an open, web-based system (https://www.randomizer.org) to generate the codes. Allocation was concealed from the researchers conducting the measurements.

Experimental Procedures, Run-in Phase, and Interventions

Before the randomization procedures, eligible participants underwent a two-week run-in phase to familiarize themselves with home-based exercises using the Google Meet platform (groups of six participants). Over this period, we delivered three sessions per week on non-consecutive days, totaling 25 minutes. Each session included the following phases: 1) warm-up phase, with exercises targeting hip and shoulder mobility; 2) main phase with seven weight-bearing exercises (push-up arm, sit and stand up from a chair, abdominal flexion, lying hip abduction, pelvic lift, isometric plantar flexion, plank exercise) for the main muscular groups.(7-9) The exercises were performed in two sets of 10 repetitions with a 60-second interval, except for the plank exercise (15 sec of core stability), and 3) cool-down phase with light-intensity movements to promote and reduce physiological responses (e.g., heart rate).

Subsequently, participants were assigned to one of two study arms to receive three sessions per week, virtual or minimally supervised home-based exercise training over 12 weeks. Both groups performed the same exercise protocol practiced during the familiarization sessions. In both groups, participants initially performed two series of 10 repetitions with a 60-second interval that progressively increased in terms of volume (e.g., the number of series increased to 3 and later to 4) and complexity (exercises guided by some implement, e.g., chair, were freely executed). The main difference between the experimental groups was that a certified exercise science professional delivered all virtually supervised group sessions during the training. In contrast, the minimally supervised group received remote support from another certified professional in exercise sciences once a week via direct messaging (e.g., WhatsApp) (see Figure 1).

Measures

An assessor blinded to allocation gathered functional capacity measures (primary and secondary outcomes).

Descriptive Variables

Sex, age, education level, body weight, height, medical features, comorbidities, and the use of pharmaceuticals to treat diseases were self-reported by subjects through a virtual questionnaire platform.(19) The body mass index (BMI) was then calculated afterward. Global cognitive function was evaluated using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (M°CA). (20) The presence of probable sarcopenia was screened by the SARC-F questionnaire.(21) We also assessed the subject's experience and familiarity with technological resources through a virtual questionnaire.

Primary Outcome: Functional Capacity

Muscle Endurance and Power: the 30-Second Chair Stand Test

The 30-second chair stand test was utilized to assess the muscle endurance and power of the lower limbs and to predict the risk of falls.(22) The test required a chair with a backrest and no armrests, as well as a stopwatch.(22) At the evaluator's signal, the participant must sit down and stand up from the chair as quickly as possible with arms crossed over the chest. The total number of repetitions performed in 30 seconds was considered to evaluate muscular endurance.(22) The application of the virtual mode of this test presented excellent reliability (ICC = 0.91 [95%CI 0.82 to 0.95]).(19)

The number of repetitions in the first 20 seconds of the 30-second chair stand test was inserted into an equation(23) to evaluate muscular power. Average Power (watts) = -504.845 + 10.793 (body weight in kg) + 21.603 (repetitions on the 20" 30-second chair stand test).(24) The virtual model application also showed excellent reliability (ICC = 0.98 [95%CI: 0.96 to 0.99]).(19)

Muscle Strength: the 5-Time-Sit-To-Stand Test

The 5-time-to-stand test consisted of performing five repetitions of sitting and rising from the chair. The time to complete these five repetitions was recorded, and their execution in a shorter time indicates better functional condition of the participant.(25) The intrarater ICC indicated excellent levels of reliability (0.93 [95%CI: 0.85 to 0.97]) for the test in virtual mode.(19)

Functional Muscle Fitness: the Sitting Rising Test

The Sitting and Rising Test measured the supports (hands and/or knees or even hands on knees or legs) the participant needed to sit and get up from the floor.(26) A zero grade was assigned if the participant could not sit or get up from the floor independently or if more than four supports were necessary to get up. From a maximum score of five points for sitting and five points for rising, one point was lost every time a support was used, and half a point was lost for any evident imbalance. In the end, the final points for sitting and rising were summed. The intrarater ICC indicated 0.90 (95% CI: 0.78 to 0.95) reliability for this test in the virtual mode.(19)

Secondary Outcomes

Cognitive Function

Cognitive function was assessed remotely via videoconference to measure processing speed, inhibitory control, and verbal fluency. The Trail Making Tests A and B were used to evaluate processing speed.(27) Both tests demonstrated moderate (ICC = 0.46, CI=95% -0.12 to 0.73) and good (ICC = 0.81, CI=95% 0.57 to 0.91) reliability, respectively.(19)

Inhibitory control was evaluated using the interference score of the Stroop test, which measures the number of hits in a maximum of 120 seconds minus the number of errors while considering the interference condition.(28) Three test conditions were used: naming colors, reading words, and the interference condition. Tests were administered using shared images. The Stroop test demonstrated excellent reliability (ICC = 0.87, CI=95% 0.74 to 0.94).(19)

Verbal fluency was evaluated using the Semantic Verbal Fluency of Animals test.(29) Participants were instructed to verbalize as many animal names with the letter "a" as possible within one minute. The test demonstrated high reliability (intrarater ICC = 0.91, CI=95% 0.80 to 0.96).(19)

Sample Size

The sample size was determined a priori using G·Power 3.1 software (https://www.psychologie.hhu.de/arbeitsgruppen/ allgemeine-psychologie-und-arbeitspsychologie/gpower), which calculated a minimum of 34 participants as necessary. The inter- and intra-group interaction ANOVA was utilized to calculate sample size, with input parameters including an effect size of 0.25;(30) alpha of 0.05, power of 0.80, two groups, and two measurements. A standard correlation between measures of 0.50 and an attrition rate of 20% were also established. The use of an effect size of 0.25 was based on a previous meta-analysis which examined the effects of minimally supervised home physical training in healthy communitydwelling older adults, compared to an unsupervised model. The variable muscle strength was considered to establish the sample calculation.(30)

Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics, Armonk, NY). We utilized linear mixed models to determine the effects of virtually supervised exercise training compared to minimally supervised home-based exercise training on each outcome of interest. All analyses followed an intention-to-treat approach, with all randomized participants included in the analysis, irrespective of dropout or treatment adherence rate. The allocation group and time-point (baseline and follow-up) were established as fixed effects, and participants as random effects. Mixed models were constructed to determine the interaction term (group × time-point) (e.g., Virtually vs. Minimal Supervision), and a Dunn-Sidak post hoc test was employed when significance was observed.

Regarding the treatment effects on cognitive outcomes, we controlled for age, sex, and educational attainment in our analyses. Multiple imputations were used to handle any missing data issues. The main results are presented as estimated marginal means (95% CIs) and mean differences between groups. The significance level was set at p < .05 for all analyses.

RESULTS

Out of the 77 participants initially enrolled, 39 were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria related to health issues (n=23) or did not agree to participate (n=16). Subsequently, 38 participants were deemed eligible, completed the baseline assessment, and were randomly assigned to one of the study arms (18 for the virtually supervised group [Group 1] and 20 for the minimally supervised home-based exercise training group [Group 2]). During follow-up, four participants withdrew from the study because of a lack of interest (n=3) or medical issues (n=1) that were not associated with the exercise programs (see Figure 2). Regarding the weekly training frequency, we observed a difference of approximately 25% between the groups. The virtually supervised group presented 60% adherence, while the minimally supervised group presented 83%. The sample consisted generally of older people with more than 12 years of schooling, with normal mental health and mood profile indicators classification. There was a discrepancy between groups regarding frequency rates (see Table 1). Table 1 presents the general characteristics of the experimental groups at baseline.

Table 2 shows estimated within-group changes and between-group differences at the end of a 12-week intervention and the results after 12 weeks. We did not observe significant within-group changes in any of the functional outcomes. Similar results were observed for cognitive outcomes, except for the Stroop test (p = .03), in which Group 2 performed better (-21%). There were no significant between-group differences in primary and secondary outcomes at the end of the 12-week intervention (see Table 2).

DISCUSSION

The study hypothesis considered that the group submitted to the program with virtual supervision would present better results than the minimally supervised group. This hypothesis was refuted, as no differences were observed between the groups. Furthermore, both groups did not show changes in outcomes over time, indicating that the HBE training programs could only maintain physical and cognitive status over the 12 weeks.

Regarding the primary outcomes, the present study did not find significant changes in strength, endurance, or muscular power at the e nd of the 12-week intervention. These findings initially appear to diverge from previous studies that have demonstrated that unsupervised and minimally supervised home resistance training can modestly improve balance and measures of leg strength and power (such as sitting and standing performance) compared to a group of control. However, several considerations need to be made and may partially explain this divergence. Firstly, previous studies have shown that resistance training at home modestly improves measures of lower limb muscle strength and power compared to control groups that only performed usual care.(8,10)

Another relevant aspect is that the older adults included in this study were functionally independent, had experience practicing resistance exercises, and had good physical performance at the beginning of the study. According to the law of diminishing returns,(31) the magnitude of exercise-related health benefits changes depending on the initial activity state, with small effect sizes expected on physical performance in highly functional individuals.(30) In other words, it is plausible that both exercise programs could not elicit an adequate adaptive response due to participants' high mobility status and experience with resistance training. Finally, there was no emphasis or specific recommendations for achieving muscular strength (overcoming resistance in the shortest possible time). The absence of muscular strength adaptations is in line with previous studies, which indicated that relevant gains in muscular power from a training regimen are related to the characteristics of the exercise protocol. Therefore, other studies examining the effects of HBE on functional outcomes should consider participants' functional status at baseline, and appropriately adapt exercise prescriptions to adhere as closely as possible to DeLorme's basic principles.(7)

Despite these results, it is worth highlighting that social isolation during the pandemic affected the physical and mental health of older people in the community.(3) Decreases of around 14% in lower limb muscle strength were observed. (3) Other important indices related to functional capacity also suffered declines, such as muscular power (-7%) and functional muscular fitness (-20%).(3) Although they did not improve physical function, the 12-week interventions (both protocols) results can be considered significant, as they seem to have guaranteed maintenance of levels of strength, endurance, and muscular power. It is essential to mention that lower limb muscle strength levels can predict functional mobility, adverse health-related outcomes, and premature death.(32)

Similar results were observed regarding cognitive outcomes. Although the literature demonstrates that different types of physical exercise,(33) specifically resistance training,(34) improve cognitive function, our study did not show a significant improvement in this outcome. It is worth noting that participants' global cognition scores at baseline were already close to the maximum, limiting the potential for improvement. Additionally, both groups exhibited similar cognitive performance at baseline, and the small changes during the intervention may not have been sufficient to differentiate the two groups. Another plausible explanation for our findings is that the length of our intervention was relatively short (12 weeks). The current literature suggests cognitive gains after long-term (e.g., interventions longer than six months) resistance exercise training.(35)

Finally, analyzing the results in a broader context, it is essential to mention that the virtually supervised group had a lower training frequency (approximately 25%) than the minimally supervised group. It is possible that the fixed days and times established between the participants in the virtually supervised group and the investigator influenced the lower frequency. Despite this, the observed results were similar in both groups, even with a smaller total volume or dose. These results are consistent with other findings showing that older adults respond better to supervised physical exercise.(9)

This study has several limitations that should be highlighted. Firstly, we did not monitor the presence of co-interventions over the 12 weeks, so participants may have engaged in other activities that could have influenced the exercise adaptations. Second, we could not assess participants' adherence to stay-at-home guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic, which could have impacted the study outcomes. Third, the treatment protocol primarily involved weight-bearing exercises to promote balance and mobility, and limited access to specific equipment (e.g., elastic bands, free weights, etc.) made it difficult to adequately progress in terms of volume and intensity, potentially impacting the physical and cognitive adaptations observed. Fourth, the absence of a control group (e.g., usual care) precludes concluding treatment efficacy. Fifth, the sample size was relatively small, and the study was conducted at a single center, which may limit its generalizability.

Regarding functional aspects, it is essential to acknowledge that different tests may provide varying perspectives on physical function, even if the in-person assessment model is similar.(36) However, our study has several strengths. Remote guidance for a home-based training program may offer a promising solution to overcome the barriers to physical activity commonly encountered by older individuals, such as mobility limitations and lack of time.(12) Additionally, individual or group-based classes are not required for this protocol. Our results demonstrate that this approach is safe and feasible for older adults, although further studies are necessary to confirm these findings.

CONCLUSION

HBE training delivered with virtual or minimal supervision may provide maintenance of physical and cognitive functions in healthy and well-functioning community-dwelling older adults who experienced activity restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We want to thank the research group team and study participants.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES

We have read and understood the Canadian Geriatrics Journal's policy on conflicts of interest disclosure and declare there are none.

FUNDING

This research did not receive external funding

Sidebar

Correspondence to: André Luiz Torres Pirauá, Department of Physical Education, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Dois irmãos, Recife/PE, Brasil

E-mail: [email protected]

Footnote

* A reliability and feasibility study has been previously published: "Videoconference assessment of functional and cognitive measures in Brazilians older adults: a reliability and feasibility study." DOI: 10.53886/gga.e0230002

References

REFERENCES

1. Botero JP, Farah BQ, de Almeida Correia M, Lofrano-Prado MC, Cucato GG, Shumate G, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic stay at home order and social isolation on physical activity levels and sedentary behavior in Brazilian adults. Einstein (Internet). 2021 Nov l [cited 2023 July 13]; 19:1-6. Available from:<https://scielo.br/j/eins/a/7HNkqNSWHCFXW WFvCwzS8Jc/?lang=en

2. Roschel H, Artioli G, Gualano B. Risk of increased physical inactivity during COVID-19 outbreak in elderly people: a call for actions. J Am Geriatr Soc [Internet]. 2020 Jun [cited 2023 July 12]; 68(6):1126-28. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/32392620/

3. de Albuquerque AF, de Souza Fonseca F, Farah BQ, de Araujo RC, Cavalcante BR, Beltrao NB, et al. Changes in physical functioning and fall-related factors in older adults due to COVID-19 social isolation. Can Geriatr J [Internet]. 2022 Sep [cited 2023 July 12]; 25(3):240-47. Available from: https:// ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9427190/

4. Hoffman GJ, Malani PN, Solway E., Kirch M, Singer DC, Kullgren JT. Changes in activity levels, physical functioning, and fall risk during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Geriatr Soc [Internet]. 2022 Jan [cited 2023 July 12]; 70(1):49-59. Available from: https://agsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/full/10.1111/jgs.17477

5. Wang YS, Lin CF, Kuo FH, Chou YC, Lin Sy. Impact of daycare service interruption during COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental functions and nutrition in older people with dementia. InHealthcare [Internet]. 2022 Sep 11 [cited 2023 July 12]; 10(9):1744. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/ healthcare10091744

6. Atıcı E, Girgin N, Çevik Saldıran T. The effects of social isolation due to COVID-19 on the fear of movement, falling, and physical activity in older people. Austr J Age [Internet]. 2022 Sep [cited 2023 July 12]; 41(3):407-13. Available from: https:// doi.org/10.1111/ajag.13063

7. Izquierdo M, Merchant RA, Morley JE, Anker SD, Aprahamian I, Arai H, et al. International exercise recommendations in older adults (ICFSR): expert consensus guideline. J Nutr Health Age [Internet]. 2021 Jul 30 [cited 2023 July 12]; 25(7):824-53. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-021-1665-8

8. Kis O, Buch A, Stern N, Moran DS. Minimally supervised home-based resistance training and muscle function in older adults: a meta-analysis. Arch Gerontol Geriatr [Internet]. 2019 Sep 1 [cited 2023 July 12]; 84:103909. Available from: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2019.103909

9. Lacroix A, Hortobagyi T, Beurskens R, Granacher U. Effects of supervised vs. unsupervised training programs on balance and muscle strength in older adults: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Sport Med [Internet]. 2017 Jun 1 [cited 2023 July 12]; 47(11):2341-61. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40279-017-0747-6

10. Manas A, Gomez-Redondo P, Valenzuela PL, Morales JS, Lucia A, Ara I. Unsupervised home-based resistance training for community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Age Res Rev [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 July 12]; 69:101368. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2021.101368

11. Denton F, Power S, Waddell A, Birkett S, Duncan M, Harwood A, et al. Is it really home-based? A commentary on the necessity for accurate definitions across exercise and physical activity programmes. Int J Environ Res Pub Health [Internet]. 2021 Sep 1 [cited 2023 July 12]; 18(17):9244. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179244

12. Borde R, Hortobágyi T, Granacher U. Dose-response relationships of resistance training in healthy old adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sport Med [Internet]. 2015 Sep 29 [cited 2023 July 12]; 45(12):1693-720. Available from: https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0385-9

13. Chen H, Zheng X, Huang H, Liu C, Wan Q, Shang, S, et al. The effects of a home-based exercise intervention on elderly patients with knee osteoarthritis: a quasi-experimental study. BMC Musculoskel Dis [Internet]. 2019 Apr 9 [cited 2023 July 12]; 20(1):1-11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12891-019-2521-4

14. Blumenthal JA, Smith PJ, Mabe S, Hinderliter A, Lin PH, Liao L, et al. Lifestyle and neurocognition in older adults with cognitive impairments: a randomized trial. Neurology [Internet]. 2019 Jan 1 [cited 2023 July 12]; 92(3):e212-e223. Available from: https://neurology.org/content/92/3/e212.abstract

15. Farah BQ, do Prado WL, Malik N, Lofrano-Prado MC, de Melo PH, Botero JP, et al. Barriers to physical activity during the COVID-19 pandemic in adults: a cross-sectional study. Sport Sci Health [Internet]. 2021 Mar 27 [cited 2023 July 12]; 17:441-47. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11332-020-00724-5

16. Gontijo AP, Rangel BD, Victor AF, de Paula Vieira CP, Santana EQ, e Duarte AD, et al. Declínio cognitivo e uso de medicamentos na população de idosos institucionalizados de uma cidade do interior de Minas Gerais, Brasil. Cadernos Saúde Colet [Internet]. 2022 l [cited 2023 July 12]; 30: 163-172.[Portuguese]. Available from: https://scielo.br/j/ cadsc/a/RrXCn99V7THWWbyxQLmrhvB/

17. Apolinario D, Dos Santos MF, Sassaki E, Pegoraro F, Pedrini AV, Cestari B, et al. Normative data for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (M°CA) and the Memory Index Score (M°CAMIS) in Brazil: adjusting the nonlinear effects of education with fractional polynomials. Int J Geriatr Psych [Internet]. 2018 Jul [cited 2023 July 12]; 33(7):893-99. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1002/gps.4866

18. M°CA Cognition. MOCA test. Remote M°Ca Testing. 2020 [Internet]. [cited 2023 July 12]. Available from: https://www. mocatest.org/remote-moca-testing/. Acesso em 9 fev. 2021.

19. Silva JD, Maranhão DC, Beltrão NB, Farah BQ, Damasceno VD, Cavalcante BR, et al. Videoconference assessment of functional and cognitive measures in Brazilian older adults: a reliability and feasibility study. Geratr Gerontol Aging [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 July 12]; 17:1-9. Available from: https:// doi.10.53886/gga.e0230002

20. Memória CM, Yassuda MS, Nakano EY, Forlenza OV. Brief screening for mild cognitive impairment: validation of the Brazilian version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Int J Geriatr Psych [Internet]. 2013 Jan [cited 2023 July 12]; 28(1):34-40. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.3787

21. Malmstrom TK, Miller DK, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Morley JE. SARC-F: a symptom score to predict persons with sarcopenia at risk for poor functional outcomes. J Cachexia Sarcopeni [Internet]. 2016 Mar [cited 2023 July 12]; 7(1):28-36. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12048

22. Jones CJ, Rikli RE, Beam WC. A 30-s chair-stand test as a measure of lower body strength in community-residing older adults. Res Q Exercise Sport [Internet]. 1999 Jun 1 [cited 2023 July 12]; 70(2):113-19. Available from: https://doi.org/10.108 0/02701367.1999.10608028

23. Smith WN, Rossi GD, Adams JB, Abderlarahman KZ, Asfour SA, Roos BA, et al. Simple equations to predict concentric lower-body muscle power in older adults using the 30-second chair-rise test: a pilot study. Clin Inter Aging [Internet]. 2010 Aug 9 [cited 2023 July 12]; 5:173-80. Available from: https:// tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2147/cia.s7978

24. Bohannon RW, Bubela DJ, Magasi SR, Wang YC, Gershon RC. Sit-to-stand test: performance and determinants across the age-span. Isokinet Exerc Sci [Internet]. 2010 Jan 1 [cited 2023 July 12]; 18(4):235-40. Available from: DOI: 10.3233/ IES-2010-0389

25. Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Robert J. Glynn, Lisa F. Berkman, Dan G. Blazer, et al. A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Geronol [Internet]. 1994 Mar 1 [cited 2023 July 12]; 49(2):M85-M94. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1093/geronj/49.2.M85

26. Araújo CG. [Sitting-rising-test: introduction of a new procedure for evaluation in exercise and sports medicine]. Rev Bra Med Sport [Internet]. 1999 Oct [cited 2023 July 12]; 5(5):179- 82. Portuguese. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1590/ S1517-86921999000500004

27. Alves FO, Zaninotto AL, Miotto EC, Souza de Lucia MC, ScaffM. [Evaluation of alternating and sustained attention in a sample of healthy adults with high level of schooling]. Psicol Hosp [Internet]. 2010 Jul [cited 2023 July 12]; 8(2):89-105. Portuguese. Available from: http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo. php?pid=S1677-74092010000200006&script=sci_arttext

28. Zalonis I, Christidi F, Bonakis A, Kararizou E, Triantafyllou NI, Paraskevas G, et al. The Stroop effect in Greek healthy population: normative data for the Stroop neuropsychological screening test. Arch of Clin Neuropsych [Internet]. 2009 Feb [cited 2023 July 12]; 24(1):81-88. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1093/arclin/acp011

29. Shao Z, Janse E, Visser K, Meyer AS. What do verbal fluency tasks measure? Predictors of verbal fluency performance in older adults. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2014 Jul 22 [cited 2023 September 14]; 5:772. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2014.00772

30. Lacroix A, Kressig RW, Muehlbauer T, Gschwind YJ, Pfenninger B, Bruegger O, et al. Effects of a supervised versus an unsupervised combined balance and strength training program on balance and muscle power in healthy older adults: a randomized controlled trial. Gerontology [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2023 July 12]; 62(3):275-88. Available from: https:// doi.org/10.1159/000442087

31. Chaabene H, Prieske O, Herz M, Moran J, Höhne J, Kliegl R, et al. Home-based exercise programmes improve physical fitness of healthy older adults: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis with relevance for COVID-19. Ageing Res Rev [Internet]. 2021 May [cited 2023 July 12]; 67:101265. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2021.101265

32. Reid K, Fielding R. Skeletal muscle power: a critical determinant of physical functioning in older adults. Exerc Sport Sci Rev [Internet]. 2012 Jan [cited 2023 July 12]; 40(1):4-12. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22016147/

33. Northey JM, Cherbuin N, Pumpa KL, Smee DJ, Rattray B. Exercise interventions for cognitive function in adults older than 50: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Sport Med [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2023 September 13]; 52(3):154-60. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-096587

34. Landrigan JF, Bell T, Crowe M, Clay OJ, Mirman D. Lifting cognition: a meta-analysis of effects of resistance exercise on cognition. Psychol Res [Internet]. 2020 Jan 9 [cited 2023 September 13]; 84(5):1167-183. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1007/s00426-019-01145-x

35. Liu-Ambrose T, Nagamatsu LS, Graf P, Beattie BL, Ashe MC, Handy TC. Resistance training and executive functions: a 12-month randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med [Internet]. 2010 Jan 25 [cited 2023 September 13]; 170(2):170-78. Available from: doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.494

36. Marsh AP, Wrights AP, Haakonssen EH, Dobrosielski MA, Chmelo EA, Barnard RT, et al. The virtual short physical performance battery. J Gerontol Series A [Internet]. 2015 Oct [cited 2023 July 12]; 70(10):1233-41. Available from: https:// doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glv029