Can two multimodal psychomotor exercise programs improve attention, affordance perception, and balance in community dwellings at risk of falling? A randomized controlled trial

Table 2 Impact of the multimodal exercise programs in selective and sustained attention variables

	Baseline (A) (Mean ± SD)	Post-intervention (B) (Mean ± SD)	Follow-up (C) (Mean ± SD)	P-value^a	Pairwise Comparison
Selective and sustained attention
Items processed (n)
EG1	254.8 ± 68.0	292.3 ± 86.9	288.8 ± 82.9	0.009	A < B, C
EG2	265.1 ± 78.2	303.3 ± 82.8	300.4 ± 91.5	0.001	A < B, C
CG	244.8 ± 75.5	250.0 ± 81.2	249.9 ± 78.1	0.854	–
P-value^b	0.855	0.204	0.210
Items recognized correctly (n)
EG1	96.6 ± 27.2	110.0 ± 37.3	108.9 ± 35.5	0.047	–
EG2	101.8 ± 36.2	120.4 ± 33.9	118.8 ± 36.9	< 0.001	A < B, C
CG	95.5 ± 34.8	95.0 ± 39.8	99.8 ± 36.2	0.076	–
P-value^b	0.893	0.160	0.295
Total efficacy (n)
EG1	236.3 ± 70.3	276.9 ± 90.5	272.2 ± 85.7	0.003	A < B, C
EG2	251.2 ± 81.2	292.2 ± 84.3	286.4 ± 92.1	< 0.001	A < B, C
CG	227.3 ± 73.9	228.6 ± 84.9	234.3 ± 80.2	0.076	–
P-value^b	0.801	0.136	0.312
Concentration index (n)
EG1	90.0 ± 32.1	105.9 ± 40.6	103.0 ± 38.0	0.002	A < B, C
EG2	97.8 ± 38.2	116.3 ± 36.3	115.8 ± 39.3	< 0.001	A < B, C
CG	89.9 ± 38.1	88.3 ± 44.7	96.1 ± 39.1	0.141	–
P-value^b	0.858	0.143	0.293
Fluctuation rate (n)
EG1	11.1 ± 2.6	12.6 ± 3.3	11.1 ± 3.5	0.207	–
EG2	12.7 ± 6.0	10.3 ± 2.6	10.4 ± 3.1	0.637	–
CG	12.9 ± 4.9	11.8 ± 4.6	10.2 ± 3.2	0.047	–
P-value^b	0.262	0.182	0.575
Percentage of errors (%)
EG1	7.8 ± 6.9	6.2 ± 5.6	6.6 ± 5.5	0.895	–
EG2	6.0 ± 5.3	4.2 ± 3.8	5.3 ± 5.8	0.611	–
CG	7.7 ± 6.0	10.4 ± 9.3	7.6 ± 7.3	0.141	–
P-value^b	0.549	0.068	0.423

SD standard deviation, EG1 experimental group attending the multimodal psychomotor program (n = 16), EG2 experimental group attending the combined program: multimodal psychomotor program + WBV (n = 16), CG control group (n = 19)
^awithin-group comparisons
^bbetween-group comparisons
<: significant differences within groups, p < 0.05

ISSN: 1471-2458