Table 1 Similarities and differences between LiFE and the newly developed gLiFE format
| Â | LiFE | gLiFE |
|---|---|---|
Aim | Improve balance and lower limb strength, increase physical activity, decrease risk of falling; long-term sustainability of the LiFE activities through habit formation and self-empowerment | |
Idea | Create new movement habits through linking LiFE activities to specific daily situations | |
Structure | Up to seven home visits of 1 hour; explain the LiFE principles during the first home visit, introduce the LiFE activities flexibly (1–2 balance/strength activities per session) | Seven sessions of 2 hours; introduction of LiFE activities in a predetermined order |
Content | LiFE principles, balance and strength activities, adapt activities to own training progress (upgrading) | |
Planning | Planning (implementation intentions), theory-based behaviour change units, group discussion | |
Teaching | Foster autonomy in choosing daily situations for implementing the LiFE activities; tailor and adapt the LiFE activities throughout the intervention phase, visualisation | |
Instruction | Flexible procedure | Detailed curriculum (gLiFE concept), trainers follow teaching methods (e.g., repetition and variation) and BCTsa, different organisational settings (mostly circle of chairs) |
Materials | LiFE assessment tool (assessment of level of difficulty in movement execution), LiFE participant’s manual | |
Activity counter (recording the number of performed activities), activity planner (detailed planning on when, how, and where the activities can be implemented), daily routine chart (identify suitable opportunities for implementing LiFE activities into daily routines) | Workbook (including activity counter and activity planner), flipchart, posters, cardboard boxes, and towels | |
Setting | Participant’s homes | Public room |
Trainer-participant-ratio | 1:1 | 1:6 (two trainers in a group of up to twelve participants) |