Comparison of Peer Mentoring and Student Mentoring in a 35-Week Fitness Program for Older Adults

Abstract

The importance of regular physical activity for older adults is well established. Many programs attempt to engage older adults in regular exercise, yet without proper mentoring attrition rates are generally high. It has been suggested that a peer-mentor model may be effective in retaining older adults in long-term exercise program and propagate improvements in fitness. PURPOSE: To investigate the applicability and effectiveness of a peer mentored exercise program, this study compared the retention and participation rates, and the improvements in physical fitness of older adults trained by peer mentors (PM) to a group trained by young qualified student mentors (SM). METHODS: First, a group of older adults was guided through a 30-week preparation program to improve their physical fitness and mentorship skills. These older adults became peer mentors and volunteered their time to mentor a new group of older adults. Later, 60 older adults (mean ± SD age: 68.7 ± 6.1 years) were recruited and randomly assigned to either the PM (N = 30) or SM (N = 30) group. Both groups completed an identical 35-week fitness program with two 75-minute training sessions per week that aimed to improve balance, flexibility, cardiovascular fitness and muscular strength. Pre-, midterm- and post-training assessments of fitness were completed including: 30-second chair stand and arm curl strength; chair sit-and-reach and back scratch flexibility; 6-min walk endurance; forward reach balance; and 8-ft up-and-go agility. Furthermore, participation and retention were documented throughout the program. RESULTS: Equally 19 subjects in each group completed the 35-week program. Subjects in the SM group demonstrated a slightly higher participation rate. Initial non-significant differences (p>0.068) between the SM and PM groups for functional fitness remained non-significant at midterm-test (p>0.072) and at post-test (p>0.057). Compared to baseline values, with the exception of the hand grip strength test in the PM group (p = 0.0612), midterm assessments indicated that subjects made significant improvements in all other fitness measures in both the PM (p<0.0147) and SM (p<0.0132) groups. When comparing post-test data to baseline, significant improvements in all fitness measures were observed in both the SM (p<0.005) and PM groups (p<0.0076), with improvements ranging from 7.7% to 60.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The well-designed physical training of this intervention illustrates the ability of older adults to improve all aspects of physical fitness. Mentors in both groups appeared effective as demonstrated by the 63% participant retention over the 35-week intervention period. Lack of significant differences in most fitness measures at the conclusion of the intervention indicated that peer-mentors were similarly effective for training older adults as qualified student-trainers. Practical Applications: The peer mentor model is applicable in an older adult exercise program and may be as effective as a program mentored by young professionals. The involvement of peer-mentors in a physical training program designed for older adults may propagate the growth of the program membership and therefore enhance program sustainability.