The characteristics

of the included studies are summarised in Table 1. Sample sizes ranged from 52 to 293. In all studies, the participants were judged to be representative of those undertaking exercise programs and the assessment methods used were judged to be valid and appropriate for the older population. The method of measuring Libraries adherence in each of the nine included studies and the adherence rates reported in each study are presented in Table 1. Most studies used more than one method for measuring adherence. The most common measures were the proportion of participants completing exercise programs (ie, did not cease participation, four studies, range 65 to 86%), proportion of PF-01367338 ic50 available sessions attended (five studies, range 58 to 77%) and average number of home exercise sessions completed per week (two studies, range 1.5 to 3

times per week). Other measures were: class attendance expressed as a proportion Raf inhibitor of participants reaching certain cut offs (two studies); total number of classes attended (one study); number of weeks in which home exercise was undertaken (one study); proportion of days on which home exercise was undertaken (one study); number of minutes walked (one study); proportion of participants meeting physical activity guidelines (one study); and proportion of participants exercising regularly (one study). There was some inconsistency in the denominator used to calculate proportions, with some studies using the total participant number and some using the number of program completers, which gave a higher number. As adherence was measured in so many different ways, it was not possible to compare adherence rates across Sclareol the studies included in this review. The factors that were significantly associated with adherence in each study and the strength of the associations are presented in Table 1. Generally, adherence rates were higher in the supervised phases

of exercise programs but there were no clear patterns of greater adherence for different types of group exercise. The person-level factors associated with better adherence can be classified as demographic, health-related, physical and psychological. Better program retention was evident in people with higher socioeconomic status and better education. Living alone was associated with better program attendance. In general, program attendance was better in people with better health (measured by fewer health conditions, better self-rated health, taking fewer medications) and lower body mass index. One study found better adherence in people with a pacemaker, which may reflect a greater motivation to exercise after the diagnosis of a heart condition.9 Better physical function, as measured by gait speed or endurance (6-minute walk test), was associated with better adherence. Psychological factors were associated with poorer adherence in a number of the included studies.