$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
The methods detailed above describe rigorous evaluation of adapted tango dissemination in an effort to ensure quality programming becomes available to community dwelling individuals with balance impairments. When this adapted tango program was implemented in community based settings around the Atlanta, GA metro area over the summer of 2012, it was found to be feasible, efficacious and generalizable, although effect sizes were generally small. Nine dance instructors without clinical qualifications participated in 15 hr of training, consisting of: a 12 hr workshop on adapted tango methods, PD-specific motor impairments, and fall prevention, followed by an additional 3 hr of individual training from the senior author. Teacher-trainees had 2-25 years of experience teaching dance and >1 year working with older adults in a fitness/dance setting. Based upon their demonstrated proficiency with safety concepts and adapted tango methods, seven teacher-trainees were selected to teach Tango in five different senior living communities located in the greater Atlanta metro area. The PI (MEH) attended each of the classes at least three times. Each of the teachers delivered the expected syllabus on the expected day, in the correct order. Two non-injurious falls—involving two self-reported frequent fallers—occurred out of 48 offered tango classes for individuals with PD and 2 non-injurious falls occurred out of 144 offered tango classes for older adults. In these instances participants resumed dancing after a short break. Altogether, the teacher trainees taught 192 classes in adapted tango according to the methods described in the Adapted Tango Manual.
Several student volunteers, who dedicated 600+ volunteer hours to efforts related to Tango, were relatively easily recruited through undergraduate and graduate pre-health list serves. All volunteers underwent fall-prevention training and were assessed for safe practices before being allowed to partner with the highest fall risk participants. In attendance, each class for those with PD averaged M = 5.5, SD = 2 volunteers and M = 3.9, SD = 2 caregivers, friends, and relatives. Data regarding precise number of volunteers per older adult class is unavailable but fewer volunteers and fewer caregivers, friends, relatives attended the older adult classes.
Some data for those with PD have been previously published.29 Eighty-eight participants (age range: 36-95 years) were recruited for participation in the adapted tango classes (PD: n = 25; older adults: n = 63). Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of the participants initially assigned to adapted tango. Sixty-seven participants (PD: n = 23, older adults: n = 44) completed 20 lessons in 10-12 weeks. Overall adherence was 76.1% but there was a significant difference between PD participants with 92% adherence (previously reported)29 and older adults with 70% adherence (p = 0.028). PD and older adult participants who did not complete the program cited illness, family commitments, other time commitments, and lack of interest as reasons for their withdrawal.
Efficacy Measures. Mobility and balance gains were similar to those observed in prior studies of adapted tango conducted in controlled academic settings.14 However, effect sizes were generally small. The changes noted are detailed here. Both groups were able to complete more rises during the 30 second chair stand and received higher scores on the BBS at post testing with gains maintained at follow-up. Gait speed and tandem stance for individuals with PD did not increase substantially at post-testing but demonstrated some increase at follow-up testing. Older adults demonstrated faster gait speed, faster TUG performance, and longer time in tandem stance from pre-to-post with gains maintained at follow-up. Figure 1 demonstrates efficacy outcomes in terms of mean change and effect sizes for each group. Cohen's d effects sizes of 0.41 and above are considered 'practically significant'.30
Falls. Amongst the Older adult cohort, 122 falls were reported in 21,900 person days in the year prior at a rate of 0.0056 falls per person-day. Twelve falls were reported in 3,612 person days in the 12 week intervention period at a rate of .0033 falls per person-day and 7 falls were reported in 3,444 person days in the 12 weeks post-intervention at a rate of 0.0020 falls per person-day. Amongst the PD cohort, because of an outlier who fell 3-4 times per day, 1,289 falls were reported in 8,760 person days in the year prior at a rate of 0.1471 falls per person-day. One hundred twelve falls were reported in 1,932 person days in the 12 week intervention period at a rate of .0580 falls per person-day and 140 falls were reported in 1,764 person days in the 12 weeks post-intervention at a rate of 0.0794 falls per person-day.
At baseline, a greater proportion of the PD sample fell in the year before the study than older adults (i.e., 60% versus 38%). Falls outside of class during the 3 month class period and in the 3 months after the class were rare, although a greater proportion of those with PD experienced a fall compared to the older adult cohort. Figure 2 compares percentages of the groups who did or did not report falls in the year prior, during the intervention, and in the ten-twelve weeks after the intervention.
Satisfaction. The program was well received as per the Exit Questionnaire, and both PD and older adult participants strongly agreed they enjoyed the class and would continue classes if given the opportunity. They agreed they noted improved coordination, walking, strength, endurance, and balance and were more physically and mentally active. The only marginally significant difference between those with PD and the older adults was that older adults more strongly agreed they noted balance improvements (p = 0.075). Numerical ranking responses regarding enjoyment of the program from an exit questionnaire administered to all participants at the conclusion of the program are detailed in Table 2. Table 3 provides a summary of open-ended responses to questions soliciting feedback about the program. Participants in both groups in particular praised the quality of the instruction, the energy of the instructors, the format of the class, the attention received, and feedback given. Many participants appreciated the opportunity to meet new people and among those with PD, the opportunity to forge new friendships with other individuals with PD. A few participants wished there had been more dance while others found the class duration too long. The most frequent recommendation for future classes was to spend more time dancing.

Figure 1: Change in Mobility & Balance Efficacy Measures. PD: Parkinson's disease; OA: Older Adults. The values presented are mean change scores +/- the standard deviation of change. Change score values are calculated as 'post minus pre' and 'follow-up minus pre' for gait speed, 30-s Chair Stand, Tandem Stance and the Berg Balance Scale. Change score values are calculated as 'pre minus post' and 'pre minus follow-up' for the Timed Up & Go. Positive change indicates improvement on the outcome. Cohen's d estimates of effect size are placed above each group's change score. Cohen's d effects sizes of .41 and above are considered 'practically significant'. 30 Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Fall Incidence Outside of Class Before, During, and After the Intervention. The percentage of the sample considered Fallers (with a history of at least one fall in the prior year) and Non-Fallers (no history of falls in the prior year) within the PD group (red bars), and the Older Adults group (pink bars) are depicted, along with the percentages of the sample who did or did not report a fall outside of class during the ten-twelve week interventional period and in the ten-twelve weeks following cessation of the intervention. The p values are the levels of significance between groups determined with Chi square tests. Although those with PD were on average younger than the older adult cohort, they were more likely to experience falls during the study. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
| | Individuals with PD | Older Adults |
| | n=25 | n=63 |
| | M (SD) | M (SD) |
| Sex | 12 F; 13 M | 49F; 14M |
| Age (years) | 68.4 (7.5) | 82.3 (8.8) |
| Education (years) | 16.5 (2.1) | 14.2 (3.1) |
| Number Co-morbidities | 3.3 (1.7) | 3.2 (1.9) |
| Number Prescription Medications | 5.4 (4.5) | 3.3 (2.0) |
| Use of Assistive Device (%) | 29% | 69% |
| Fear of Falling (FoF) | 3.0 (1.5) | 2.9 (1.7) |
| Quality of Life (QoL) | 5.2 (0.9) | 5.4 (1.2) |
| Composite Physical Function (CPF) (/24) | 20.3 (4.9) | 17.8 (4.7) |
| Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (/30) | 26.0 (2.8) | 22.5 (4.0) |
| Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) (/63) | 12.1 (9.6) | 6.6 (4.7) |
| UPDRS Motor Subscale III (n=24) | 28.1 (6.9) | ~ |
| Gait Speed (m/s) | 0.97(.24) | 0.88(.23) |
| 30 s Chair Stand (Number of Rises) | 11.5(4) | 7.9(5) |
| Berg Balance Scale (/56 points) | 51.2(4.5) | 46.1(8.7) |
| Tandem Stance (s) | 26.1(26) | 8.3(16) |
| Timed Up and Go (s) | 11.9(8) | 12.9(5) |
Table 1: Adapted Tango Baseline Participant Demographics & Outcome Measure Baselines. Participant-reported co-morbidities included arthritis, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart problems and osteoporosis, among others. FoF & QoL are based upon participant ratings regarding worry about falling / quality of life from 1 (low) to 7 (high). For the Composite Physical Function Index, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and the Berg Balance Scale higher values indicate greater physical function, cognitive ability, and balance respectively. For BDI-II, higher values indicate greater depression.
| Total Sample (n=67) | PD (n=23) | Older Adult (n=44) | p value |
| Enjoyment | 1[1,1] | 1[1,1] | 1[1,1] | 0.725 |
| Balance | 2[1,3] | 2[2,3] | 2[1,3] | 0.075 |
| Walking | 2[1,3] | 2[2,3] | 2[1,3] | 0.427 |
| Mood | 2[1,3] | 2[1.25,2] | 2[1,3] | 0.713 |
| Coordination | 2[1,3] | 2[2,3] | 2[1,3] | 0.766 |
| Strength | 2[1,3] | 2.5[2,3] | 2[1,3] | 0.328 |
| Endurance | 2[1,3] | 2[2,3] | 2[1,3] | 0.783 |
| Continuing | 1[1,2] | 1.5[1,2] | 1[1,2] | 0.988 |
| Physically More Active | 2[1,3] | 2[1.25,3] | 2[1,3] | 0.876 |
| Mentally More Active | 2[1,3] | 2[1,3] | 2[1,3] | 0.659 |
Table 2: Participant Satisfaction. Participants indicated level of agreement (1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree) with statements regarding the class and improvements in their physical and mental well-being. Values are represented as Median [1st, 3rd quartile]. There were no differences between those with PD and older adults in self-reported satisfaction.
| PD | Older Adults |
| What did you like best? | | |
| Instructors and helpers—11 | Instructors and helpers—18 |
| Being able to socialize—11 | Exercise—16 |
| Opportunity to dance—3 | Opportunity to dance—14 |
| Structured/Scheduled activity—1 | Being able to socialize—12 |
| Feeling of accomplishment—1 | Bodily improvements (balance, walking, energy etc.)—6 |
| Bodily improvements (balance, walking, energy etc.)—1 | Being 'challenged to think & act'—1 |
| Flexibility with attendance—1 | All of it—1 |
| Handouts with brief descriptions—1 | |
| What did you like least? | | |
| More dancing, less exercise requested—4 | Duration too long—11 |
| Nothing—3 | Nothing—8 |
| Travel & Distance—3 | Other—5 |
| Attendance and Record Keeping Pressure—2 | Program duration (20 lessons) too short—4 |
| Transportation to class dependant on others—1 | Hearing/Audio—2 |
| Music system did not work well—1 | |
| Warm up too long—1 | |
| Too overprotected at times—1 | |
| Number of chairs in the room made me fearful of running into them—1 |
| Not enough emphasis on keeping up with the music—1 | |
| Female partners (felt safer with male partners)—1 | |
| Duration of individual classes (1.5 h) too long—1 | |
| Recommendations | | |
| Nothing—5 | Nothing—11 |
| More Dancing—5 | Have more volunteer partners available—10 |
| Shorter classes or more breaks—2 | Other—6 |
| Include other Latin dances such as the cha cha—1 | Shorter classes—5 |
| Provide tango music to listen to at home—1 | Visual Stimuli and Materials—4 |
| Fewer chairs in room—1 | Program Duration (10-12 weeks) too short—3 |
| Make-up class options—1 | Positioning and Point of View of Instructor—3 |
| Better volunteer awareness of PD limitations—1 | More Movement—2 |
| Have a focus group to share experiences—1 | |
| Allow more opportunities to take notes—1 | |
| Use name tags for the first few classes—1 | |
| Recruit more male volunteers to partner—1 | |
Table 3: Participant Feedback. Participants completed an open-ended Exit Questionnaire regarding what they liked best and least about the class and suggestions for improvement. Their responses are summarized here.