An interventional study of WALK and ACTIVE in Parkinson Disease, sponsored by University of Aarhus. Recruiting at 1 site in Denmark. Open to participants aged 40 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-07-03.
Sponsored by University of Aarhus · Not applicable, Interventional, and Supportive care
The goal of this clinical trial is to investigate if brisk walking can improve walking function in people with Parkinson's disease and what kind of brisk walking intervention that is most effective. The main questions are:
If brisk walking can reduce self-perceived walking difficulty What type of exercise intervention is most effective. Researchers will compare a brisk walking group receiving a personalized walking program with a group receiving an activity tracker and a control group.
Participants will
Background Parkinson's disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder and one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Impaired walking is considered one of the most bothersome symptoms that people with Parkinson's disease wish to improve, affecting independence, ability to work, and quality of life. Walking impairment is present from the early stage of the disease with an expected progression and a more frequent presentation along the course of the disease. Currently, only few medical treatments exist that target walking, and these show minor effects while causing side effects. Non-pharmacological interventions that can improve or prevent loss of walking ability are therefore highly warranted.
Exercise is a promising non-pharmacological intervention in people with Parkinson's disease with studies reporting improved walking performance following different exercise modalities, including high-intensity aerobic exercise. Despite extensive research investigating the effects of various exercise interventions on walking, few have examined more traditional walking training. This is somewhat surprising as walking is task-specific training for walking itself, while also being feasible and showing promising results in people with Parkinson's disease. In addition, walking is easily accessible and a potential efficient low-cost intervention that is commonly used and therefore well-known in clinical rehabilitation practice. Yet only two long-term studies could be located applying walking training. Despite being long-term, these studies are limited by 1) not considering possible factors facilitating adherence, 2) not performing follow-up testing, 3) not applying any inclusion criterion for walking impairment implying that any potential effects might be diminished due to well-functioning participants without walking impairments, 4) not including a comprehensive test battery (i.e., no registration of comorbidities, physical activity level, health-related quality of life), and 5) not investigating the effect on perceived walking difficulties despite the relevance of understanding the subjective impact of walking training. Further evaluation of walking interventions is therefore needed in people with Parkinson's disease.
Despite the importance of a physically active lifestyle, only 27% (potentially less) of people with Parkinson's disease meet the established physical activity recommendations (≥ 150 min/week of moderate to vigorous physical activity). Therefore, it is very challenging to design a walking intervention that increases physical activity levels while being sustainable. To do so, it is essential to incorporate motivational factors that facilitate adherence. These include high self-efficacy, low cost, less travel, self-perceived positive effects of walking, and support from family/carers and health professionals. To comply with these factors, remotely or partly supervised home-based exercise has been suggested as a feasible and effective strategy to alleviate Parkinson's disease motor symptoms. Another aspect to consider is group vs. individually based exercise sessions. Both have shown equally effective in improving functional capacity in healthy individuals, but combined group- and individual-based exercise has been recommended as the most attractive model for the broadest range of people with Parkinson's disease. Overall, by incorporating these strategies in walking training, this exercise modality might offer a sustainable, cost-effective, and easy-to-apply intervention that can be offered in local communities worldwide. This would also include people with Parkinson's disease living without easy access to training facilities or who are governed by poor healthcare systems. Another even more easy-to-apply and low-cost intervention to increase physical activity, is to offer a wearable activity tracker. One study reported increased physical activity level in people with Multiple sclerosis when offering a wearable activity tracker and engaging in group- and individual motivational online meetings compared to a control group. However, to the investigator's knowledge, this has not been assessed in people with Parkinson's disease.
Therefore, the primary aim is to investigate the efficacy of a 24-week combined supervised group- and non-supervised individual-based walking intervention (WALK) compared to both a group receiving a wearable activity tracker (HOME) and a control group (CON) on perceived walking difficulties in people with Parkinson's disease. The secondary aims are to identify and characterize responders and non-responders to walking training and to investigate the cost-effectiveness of these exercise interventions.
The hypothesis is that the WALK group will be superior to HOME and CON, while HOME will be superior to CON after 24 weeks in reducing perceived walking difficulties, which will be sustained after a 24-week follow up.
Methods and materials The project includes one main study and two embedded studies. Study 1 (main study): A single-blinded randomized controlled trial including three interventions (WALK, HOME and CON). Tests will be conducted at 0, 24 and 48 weeks.
Study 2: Identification and characterization of responders (i.e., ≥3 point decrease in the generic walking scale or ≥6% increase in maximal oxygen consumption) and non-responders to walking training.
Study 3: Economic evaluation of WALK compared to HOME and CON.
Statistical considerations The study sample size is powered based on descriptive Parkinson's disease data on the primary outcome (i.e., generic walking scale) and the assumption that a clinically meaningful change of ≥3 points will be detected between all three groups after 24 weeks (i.e. WALK > HOME > CON). Moreover, based on the inclusion criteria, a more homogeneous population sample compared to the previous study is expected, and thus a lower standard deviation. Lastly, it is expected that 15% will drop out. A one-way ANOVA was used to estimate the sample size (a=0.05, power=0.8, 24-weeks post mean values for CON, HOME and WALK = 15, 12, 9 ± 8, and dropout proportion = 15%). The calculation showed that 43 people with Parkinson's disease should be enrolled into each group.
4,487 studies on the registry are indexed under Parkinson Disease; 1,082 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 129 is above the median of 40 across 3,294 interventional studies indexed under Parkinson Disease.
Browse Parkinson Disease studies →University of Aarhus is the lead sponsor of 1,274 studies on the registry; 183 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
43 people with Parkinsons disease would be randomly assigned to this experimental group. The group will receive the intervention "WALK", that covers a personalized exercise program and group exercise session. It further covers the same as in the HOME group.
Behavioral: WALK
43 people with Parkinsons disease would be randomly assigned to this active comparator group. The group receives the intervention (HOME) that covers an activity tracker and motivational telephone calls. It further covers the same as in the CON group.
Behavioral: ACTIVE
43 people with Parkinsons disease would be randomly assigned to this sham comparator group. The group will only receive a short lecture in Parkinsons disease and exercise after completing the baseline test and allocated to the group.
Behavioral: CON
The intervention covers a personalized 24-week progressive brisk walking program. The program consists of moderate to high-intensity walking (i.e., 55-85% maximal heart rate) performed as both continuous and interval training sessions 2-3 times/week lasting 30-60 min/session. Four individually supervised sessions will be conducted in the first 2 weeks, while 1 supervised group session will be received bi-weekly. Furthermore, the group will receive an activity tracker and monthly telephone calls will be offered to adjust the intensity of the program (if necessary), clarify any questions regarding the intervention, and give verbal motivation. At the baseline assessment and at week 12, during a group training session, the figure of 8 walk test will be conducted to gain insigh tinto the current status of the training program. Lastly, after completion of the baseline test, the participants are given a brief educational session (walking advice) on recommended guidelines for physical activity
Will receive an activity tracker is provided alongside monthly telephone calls and walking advice after the baseline test. Similar to WALK, 3 telephone calls are provided during the follow-up period.
Receives a brief educational session (walking advice) is provided at baseline, after which no further contacts are made.
The Generic Walking Scale - 12 items (Walk-12G)
The generic walking scale is a 12-item questionnaire covering different aspects of walking difficulties during everyday life. Scores ranged from 0 (no problem) to 42 (severe walking difficulties)
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
Demographic measures
Demographic measures cover the following: Sex (male/female) Age (years) Weight (kg) Height (cm) Body mass index (kg/m2) Fat mass (%) Muscle mass (kg) Time of diagnosis (years) Blood pressure (mmHg) Years of education (years) Levodopa Equivalent Daily Dose (Parkinson's disease medication) Beta blocker (yes/no)
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
Chair rise
Linear encoder equipment is used to measure muscle force and muscle power during a chair rise.
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating scale (MDS-UPDRS) part I, II, III, and IV
All four parts (I to IV) are collected during the study as well as the individual motor symptoms from part III (rigidity, bradykinesia, postural instability and tremor) Part I assesses non-motor symptoms experience of daily life. Score ranged from 0 (no problem) to 52 (severe problems) Part II assesses motor symptoms experienced of daily life. Score ranged from 0 (no problem) to 52 (severe problems) Part III is a motor examination. Scores ranged from 0 (no problem) to 132 (severe problems) Part IV assesses motor complications. Scores ranged from 0 (no problem) to 24 (severe problems) Rigidity covers items 3.3 and scores from 0 (no problem) to 20 (severe problems). Bradykinesia covers items 3.4-3.8 and 3.14 and scores from 0 (no problem) to 44 (severe problems) postural instability covers items 3.9-3.13 and scores from 0 (no problem) to 20 (severe problems). Tremor covers items 3.15-3.18 and scores from 0 (no problem) to 40 (severe problems).
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
Mini Balance Evaluation Systems Test (MiniBESTest)
Assess balance. Scores from 0 (worse) to 28 (best) points
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
Timed-up and Go (TUG)
Three trials are performed. The fastest trial is used for analysis.
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
Six-Spot Step Test (SSST)
Four trials are performed (two for right leg and two for left leg). The average time for the four trials are used in the analysis
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
Six-minute walk test (6MWT)
Total distance (m) covered during 6 minutes of fast walking
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test
Scores from 0 (worse) to 30 (best). Total score are used in the analysis
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT)
Measures cognition. Test duration is 90 sec. Score of 0 is worse, and the higher the better. There is no limit but often not more than 75 points.
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
Maximal oxygen consumption test (VO2max test)
Maximal oxygen consumption test (VO2max) would be performed on a ergometer bicycle. VO2max (O2 ml/min) will be measured. Weight would be used to calculate weight normalized VO2max (O2 ml/kg/min)
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
Borg scale (part of VO2max test)
The Borg scale assesses self-perceived exertion. It ranges from 6 (minor exertion) to 20 (maximum exertion). The scale would be used as part of the VO2max test.
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
Maximal heart rate (part of VO2max test)
Maximal heart rate (beats/min) would be obtained as part of the VO2max test. The highest measure would be used for further analysis.
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
Physcial activity level
Physical activity level will be assessed using accelerometer (Axivity A3) for 7 consecutive days.
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES) (questionnaire)
The short version with 8 items will be used for both interventions groups (WALK and ACTIVE). It assesses the enjoyment of performing physical activity and scores ranged from 0 (no enjoyment) to 56 (greatest level of enjoyment)
Time frame: Only at the post test (24 weeks)
Baecke Physical Activity Questionnaire (BHPAQ) (questionnaire)
Assess physical activity during work and leisure time and amount of sport participation. Scores ranged from 1 (low activity) to 5 (a lot of activity) in the three categories.
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
EuroQol-5 Domain-5 level (EQ-5D-5L) (questionnaire)
Assess quality of life. Scores in Denmark ranged from -0.757 (worse quality of life) to 1.0 (best quality of life).
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
Modfied Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS) (questionnaire)
The questionnaire are included to be used in future cross-sectional analyses. It assesses fatigue and scores ranged from 0 (not fatigue) to 84 (extremely fatigued). The questionnaire is also subdivided into physical (0-36 points) cognitive (0-40 points) and psychosocial (0-8 points) subscales.
Time frame: Baseline only
Major Depression Inventory (MDI) (questionnaire)
It assesses depression symptoms. Scores ranged from 0 (no depression) to 50 (severe depression)
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
Non-Motor Symptoms Questionnaire (NMSQuest) (questionnaire)
Assess non-motor symptoms and contains 30 items. It scores from 0 (no symptoms) to 30 (severe symptoms)
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
Parkinsons Disease Questionnaire-39 items (PDQ-39) (questionnaire)
Assess quality of life. It is specific for Parkinsons disease. It contains several domains. The total score ranged from 0 (no problem) to 100 (severe problems).
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
Parkinsons disease Fatigue Scale-16 items (PFS-16) (questionnaire)
Parkinson specific survey that assesses fatigue. Score ranged from 16 (no fatigue) and 80 (severe fatigue)
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) (questionnaire)
Assess sleep quality. Contains 10 items (and some additional items). Score ranged from 0 (no problem) to 21 (severe problem)
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
Breif Pain Inventory (BPI) (questionnaire)
Assess pain and interference. It contains 16 items, and the score is divided in pain which goes from 0 (no pain) to 40 (worst pain) and interference of pain which goes from 0 (no interference) to 70 (extreme interference).
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
Falls Efficacy Scale - International (FES-I) (questionnaire)
Assess fear of falling. Contains 16 items. Score ranged from 16 (no fear) to 64 (severe fear)
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
Figure-of-8 Walk Test (F8W)
The F8W is included to motivate participants in the WALK group to sustain active. The test would be conducted at baseline (after randomization) and midway through the intervention period (12 weeks). By seeing progress (i.e., improved test performance) the participant would be motivated to sustain active. Otherwise, if no improvement is detected, the training program would be reevaluated for the participant to increase the likelihood of an improved walking function (i.e., improved Walk-12G score) after 24 weeks.
Time frame: Baseline and midway through the intervention (12 weeks)
Motivational telephone calls
Both WALK and ACTIVE will receive motivational telephone calls. By the end of the call, three questions (yes/no answer) would be asked to the participants to assess the degree of motivation through the intervention period and follow-up period. In total 8 telephone calls would be conducted (5 during the intervention period and 3 during the follow-up period) The questions are: 1. Du you feel motivated to continuing the training in the following period? 2. Have you felt that the training gave you more energy during the day? 3. Do you feel that you have made progress with your training in the latest period? 4. Do you feel that the training has improved your general health and wellbeing?
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of follow-up at 48 weeks
Plan to share: No — There is currently no plan to make the individual data available for other researchers. This requires informed consents from each participant and a data processing agreement, according to the GDPR rules, which have not been prepared prior to the initiation of the study. However, a co-supervisor (Erika Franzén, Sweden) affiliated to the project might receive some relevant pseudonymized data. If that is the case, the protocol description will be updated.
Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.
Contact study teamGet an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
University of Aarhus