Increased Functional Capacity For Adaptive Athletes Through High Intensity Functional Training (HIFT): 465 Board #303 May 29 11:00 AM - 12:30 PM

BACKGROUND: Individuals with adaptive needs (e.g., spinal cord injuries, cerebral palsy, amputations) encounter various barriers that limit their physical activity (PA). High intensity functional training (HIFT) programs have been developed to help those with adaptive needs improve their functional capacity. Adaptive HIFT programs allow for the preservation of a workout stimulus with exercise modifications or substitutions made for current physical conditions. However, research is lacking for adaptive HIFT programs. PURPOSE: To compare ratings for difficulty and confidence of functional movements before and after an adaptive HIFT intervention. METHODS: Participants included 13 adults (age = 38 ± 11 years, 75% male), and required the use of wheelchairs, limb braces, prosthesis, and crutches. The study consisted of an 8-week adaptive HIFT intervention with 2-3 60-minute supervised sessions per week. Participants completed a survey before and after the intervention that included the Outpatient Physical Therapy Improvement in Movement Assessment Log (OPTIMAL), which measured difficulty and confidence in performing 22 movements necessary to perform various functional activities (e.g., rolling over, squatting), on a 5-point scale (1 high, 5 low). All 13 participants completed the intervention. Due to differential survey completion (i.e., baseline n = 8, posttest n = 5; only 2 of those completed it at each time point), data were treated as cross-sectional and independent samples t-tests were performed via SPSS 25 to compare ratings for each time point. RESULTS: Difficulty ratings approached significance for lying flat, ΔM = 1.1 [-.01, 2.3], (N = 8, 5), t (7) = 2.3, p = .051, SE = .4; squatting, ΔM = 1.7 [-.1, .9], (N = 7, 5), t (10) = 2.1, p = .06, SE = .8; and walking long distances, ΔM = 1.7 [-.4, 3.7], (N = 7, 5), t (10)= 2.2, p = .6, SE = .8. Confidence ratings were significant for grasping, ΔM = .6 [.003, 1.2], (N = 8, 5), t (7) = 2.4, p = .05, SE = .3. No difficulty or confidence ratings had significantly lower scores at posttest. CONCLUSION: Adaptive HIFT programs show promise for addressing functional movement limitations for adaptive adults. This would allow for increased PA participation. Future studies should increase sample sizes and compare outcomes from HIFT programs to other types of PA for the adaptive population.