Skip to main content

Table 3 Methods and results of differential effects analyses of studies included in analysis stage 2 (n = 11)

From: Impact of universal interventions on social inequalities in physical activity among older adults: an equity-focused systematic review

Study Overall intervention effect Analysis of differential effects
PROGRESS-Plus Methodological approach Reported differential effects
Longitudinal study designs with two or more comparison groups
 Van Stralen et al. (2010) [57] In1: No overall effects on PA.
In2: Positive effect on total weekly min of PA.
Gender/sex, Education, Age, Marital status Interaction terms between trial arms (CG as reference) and PROGRESS-Plus factors in multilevel linear regression model; stratification of data by categories of the PROGRESS-Plus factor for significant (p < 0.1) interaction terms and re-examining effects. Significant In1 x age interaction (βIn1xage = −92.2; SD = 52.8; p = 0.08).
In1: No significant effects for <65-year-olds and ≥65-year-olds.
In2: Significant effect only in <65-year-olds (βIn2 = 76.5; 95% CI = 4.9 to 148.0).
No other significant interaction effects.
 Peels et al. (2013) [54] In1, In2: Positive effects on weekly days and min of PA.
In3, In4: No overall effects on PA.
Gender/sex, Education, Age Interaction terms between trial arms (CG as reference) and PROGRESS-Plus factors in multilevel linear regression model. No significant interactions (p > 0.05).
 Harris et al. (2015) [52] Positive effects on average daily step-counts. Gender/sex, Age Interaction terms between trial arms and PROGRESS-Plus factors in multilevel regression model. No significant interaction terms in regression model.
Considering effect estimates with CI, significant effect in men (between group difference in change: 1534; 95% CI = 775–2294), no significant effect in women (591; 95% CI = −125 to 1307).
Significant effects in all age groups (60–64, 65–69, 70–75 years).
 Poulsen et al. (2007) [55] NA–only subgroups presented. Gender/sex and Age Logistic regression analyses were stratified by gender/sex and age group. Preventive home-visits: Significant effect on stabilizing PA in 80-year-old women. No effects in 75-year-old women and 75- and 80-year-old men.
Educational intervention: Significant effect on increasing PA in 80-year-old women. No effects in 75-year-old women, and 75- and 80-year-old men.
 Nahm et al. (2010) [53] No overall effects on PA. Gender/sex, Race/ethnicity, Age Subgroup analyses with PROGRESS-Plus factors included as a second between subjects factor in mixed linear model. No significant subgroup effects.
 Capodaglio et al. (2007) [47] Significant increase in AA3 time in intervention group (no change in control group).
For remaining outcomes, only subgroups presented.
Gender/sex Analyses (t-tests for dependent samples) were stratified by gender/sex group. Significant effect (p < 0.05) on MDEE only in males; positive effects on Class 2 PA and AA3 time for both males and females, but different patterning of improvement. (No significant effects in control males and females).
Longitudinal study designs with one group pre-post design
 Croteau & Richeson (2005) [48] Significant increase in daily step-counts. Age One-way ANOVA to test differences between age groups and improvement scores; LSD multiple comparison test following significant test result. Significant difference in improvement scores between age groups (p = 0.028).
Significantly larger effects for the youngest (60–64 years) age group compared to the 70–74, 75–79, 80–84 and ≥85 age groups. No significant difference between the youngest and 2nd youngest (65–69 years) age groups.
 Gellert et al. (2011) [50] Significant increase in PA. Marital status ANOVA of change to test differences in change in PA over time between partner status groups. Significant time x partner status interaction (p < 0.05).
Effects were stronger for participants whose partners also took part as compared to participants whose partner did not take part and participants without partner. No difference between the latter two subgroups.
 Fitzpatrick et al. (2008) [49] Significant increase in all PA outcomes except minutes of PA on physically active days. Gender/sex, Race/ethnicity, Education, Age Linear regression analyses to explore associations between PROGRESS-Plus factors and change in PA following the intervention. No significant associations (p > 0.05).
 Ståhl et al. (2013) [56] No overall effects on PA. Gender/sex, Age Chi2-tests to test differences between gender/sex and age subgroups in change in PA following the intervention. No significant differences.
Cross-sectional study design with control group
 Hallgrimsdottir et al. (2015) [51] IG had significantly higher frequency of walking and activity compared to CG. Gender/sex, Age Interactions terms between PROGRESS-Plus factors and trial arms (CG as reference) in logistic regression model. No significant interactions.
  1. Abbreviations: NA Not applicable, In Intervention, IG Intervention group, CG Control group, PA Physical activity, SD Standard deviation, CI Confidence interval, AA3 Aerobic activities over 3 metabolic equivalent (MET) intensity, MDEE Mean daily energy expenditure, ANOVA Analysis of variance, LSD Least Significant Difference