Older Adults

This is a study protocol for a 3-arm RCT (Tai Chi vs usual care vs group walking, 2:2:1 ratio, n=90) powered at 90% to detect a 50-meter difference in 6MWT distance between Tai Chi and usual care grou

This is a study protocol for a 3-arm RCT (Tai Chi vs usual care vs group walking, 2:2:1 ratio, n=90) powered at 90% to detect a 50-meter difference in 6MWT distance between Tai Chi and usual care grou

This is a study protocol for a 3-arm RCT (Tai Chi vs usual care vs group walking, 2:2:1 ratio, n=90) powered at 90% to detect a 50-meter difference in 6MWT distance between Tai Chi and usual care grou

This is a study protocol for a 3-arm RCT (Tai Chi vs usual care vs group walking, 2:2:1 ratio, n=90) powered at 90% to detect a 50-meter difference in 6MWT distance between Tai Chi and usual care grou

This is a study protocol for a 3-arm RCT (Tai Chi vs usual care vs group walking, 2:2:1 ratio, n=90) powered at 90% to detect a 50-meter difference in 6MWT distance between Tai Chi and usual care grou

This is a study protocol for a 3-arm RCT (Tai Chi vs usual care vs group walking, 2:2:1 ratio, n=90) powered at 90% to detect a 50-meter difference in 6MWT distance between Tai Chi and usual care grou

This is a study protocol for a 3-arm RCT (Tai Chi vs usual care vs group walking, 2:2:1 ratio, n=90) powered at 90% to detect a 50-meter difference in 6MWT distance between Tai Chi and usual care grou

This is a study protocol for a 3-arm RCT (Tai Chi vs usual care vs group walking, 2:2:1 ratio, n=90) powered at 90% to detect a 50-meter difference in 6MWT distance between Tai Chi and usual care grou

This is a study protocol for a 3-arm RCT (Tai Chi vs usual care vs group walking, 2:2:1 ratio, n=90) powered at 90% to detect a 50-meter difference in 6MWT distance between Tai Chi and usual care grou

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Exercise training produced a moderate effect of differential improvement in sleep quality compared to wait-list control in older veterans with PTSD, as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.

Effect: improvement; d=.61; CI: 95% CI -3.0, 0.5

Exercise training produced a moderate effect of differential improvement in sleep quality compared to wait-list control in older veterans with PTSD, as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.

Effect: improvement; d=.61; CI: 95% CI -3.0, 0.5

Exercise training produced a moderate effect of differential improvement in sleep quality compared to wait-list control in older veterans with PTSD, as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.

Effect: improvement; d=.61; CI: 95% CI -3.0, 0.5

Exercise training produced a moderate effect of differential improvement in sleep quality compared to wait-list control in older veterans with PTSD, as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.

Effect: improvement; d=.61; CI: 95% CI -3.0, 0.5

Exercise training produced a moderate effect of differential improvement in sleep quality compared to wait-list control in older veterans with PTSD, as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.

Effect: improvement; d=.61; CI: 95% CI -3.0, 0.5

Exercise training produced a moderate effect of differential improvement in sleep quality compared to wait-list control in older veterans with PTSD, as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.

Effect: improvement; d=.61; CI: 95% CI -3.0, 0.5

Exercise training produced a moderate effect of differential improvement in sleep quality compared to wait-list control in older veterans with PTSD, as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.

Effect: improvement; d=.61; CI: 95% CI -3.0, 0.5

Exercise training produced a moderate effect of differential improvement in sleep quality compared to wait-list control in older veterans with PTSD, as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.

Effect: improvement; d=.61; CI: 95% CI -3.0, 0.5

Exercise training produced a moderate effect of differential improvement in sleep quality compared to wait-list control in older veterans with PTSD, as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.

Effect: improvement; d=.61; CI: 95% CI -3.0, 0.5

Exercise training produced a moderate effect of differential improvement in sleep quality compared to wait-list control in older veterans with PTSD, as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.

Effect: improvement; d=.61; CI: 95% CI -3.0, 0.5

Exercise training produced a moderate effect of differential improvement in sleep quality compared to wait-list control in older veterans with PTSD, as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.

Effect: improvement; d=.61; CI: 95% CI -3.0, 0.5

Exercise training produced a moderate effect of differential improvement in sleep quality compared to wait-list control in older veterans with PTSD, as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.

Effect: improvement; d=.61; CI: 95% CI -3.0, 0.5

Exercise training produced a moderate effect of differential improvement in sleep quality compared to wait-list control in older veterans with PTSD, as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.

Effect: improvement; d=.61; CI: 95% CI -3.0, 0.5

Exercise training produced a moderate effect of differential improvement in sleep quality compared to wait-list control in older veterans with PTSD, as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.

Effect: improvement; d=.61; CI: 95% CI -3.0, 0.5