Abstract
Abstract
Background
We estimated the short-term effects of an educational workshop and 10-week outdoor walk group (OWG) compared to the workshop and 10 weekly reminders (WR) on increasing outdoor walking (primary outcome) and walking capacity, health-promoting behavior, and successful aging defined by engagement in meaningful activities and well-being (secondary outcomes) in older adults with difficulty walking outdoors.
Methods
In a 4-site, parallel-group randomized controlled trial, two cohorts of community-living older adults (≥ 65 years) reporting difficulty walking outdoors participated. Following a 1-day workshop, participants were stratified and randomized to a 10-week OWG in parks or 10 telephone WR reinforcing workshop content. Masked evaluations occurred at 0, 3, and 5.5 months. We modeled minutes walked outdoors (derived from accelerometry and global positioning system data) using zero-inflated negative binomial regression with log link function, imputing for missing observations. We modeled non-imputed composite measures of walking capacity, health-promoting behavior, and successful aging using generalized linear models with general estimating equations based on a normal distribution and an unstructured correlation matrix. Analyses were adjusted for site, participation on own or with a partner, and cohort.
Results
We randomized 190 people to the OWG (n = 98) and WR interventions (n = 92). At 0, 3, and 5.5 months, median outdoor walking minutes was 22.56, 13.04, and 0 in the OWG, and 24.00, 26.07, and 0 in the WR group, respectively. There was no difference between groups in change from baseline in minutes walked outdoors based on incidence rate ratio (IRR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) at 3 months (IRR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.47, 1.14) and 5.5 months (IRR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.44, 1.34). Greater 0 to 3-month change in walking capacity was observed in the OWG compared to the WR group (βz-scored difference = 0.14, 95% CI 0.02, 0.26) driven by significant improvement in walking self-efficacy; other comparisons were not significant.
Conclusions
A group, park-based OWG was not superior to WR in increasing outdoor walking activity, health-promoting behavior or successful aging in older adults with difficulty walking outdoors; however, the OWG was superior to telephone WR in improving walking capacity through an increase in walking self-efficacy. Community implementation of the OWG is discussed.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03292510 Date of registration: September 25, 2017.
Funder
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Toronto Rehabilitation Institute Chair at the University of Toronto
Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference84 articles.
1. Mayo NE, Mate K, Akinrolie O, Chan H, Salbach NM, Webber SC, Barclay R. Components of a behavior change model drive quality of life in community-dwelling older persons. J Aging Phys Act 2023:1–9.
2. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World population prospects 2022: summary of results. 2022. https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/wpp2022_summary_of_results.pdf. Accessed 04 Sep 2024.
3. Theis KA, Murphy LB, Baker NA, Hootman JM. When you can’t walk a mile: walking limitation prevalence and associations among middle-aged and older US adults with arthritis: a cross-sectional, population-based study. ACR Open Rheumatol. 2019;1:350–8.
4. Musich S, Wang SS, Ruiz J, Hawkins K, Wicker E. The impact of mobility limitations on health outcomes among older adults. Geriatr Nurs. 2018;39:162–9.
5. Raina P, Wolfson C, Kirkland S, Griffith L. The Canadian longitudinal study on aging (CLSA) report on health and aging in Canada: findings from baseline data collection 2010–2015. 2018. https://www.clsa-elcv.ca/doc/2639. Accessed 04 Sep 2024.