4.7 Article

Prevalence and trends in physical activity among older adults in the United States: A comparison across three national surveys

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 89, Issue -, Pages 37-43

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.05.009

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Intramural Research Program at National Cancer Institute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper examined how many older adults (65 + years) are meeting physical activity (PA) Guidelines (PAG; 150 min/week of moderate-to-vigorous PA) using data from three leading national surveys (NHANES, BRFSS and NHIS). The proportion of individuals meeting aerobic PAG was determined for the most recent cycle available for each survey (NHANES 2011-12, NHIS and BRFSS 2013). We also assessed whether PAG adherence has changed over time. Predicted margins from multinomial logistic regression were computed after adjusting for age, race/ethnicity and gender and sample weights. The proportion of older adults meeting PAG was 27.3% for NHANES, 35.8% for NHIS and 44.3% for BRFSS. Across all surveys, men reported higher levels of activity than women, Non-Hispanic whites reported higher levels than Non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics, activity declined with age and was lower in those with functional limitations, all P < 0.05. The proportion of older adults meeting PAG in the NHIS survey, the only survey where PA questions remained the same over time, increased from 25.7% in 1998 to 35.8% in 2013 (P < 0.01). Point-estimates for activity levels are different between surveys but they consistently identify sub-groups who are less active. Although older adults are reporting more activity over time, adherence to aerobic and strength training PAG remains low in this population and there is a need for effective interventions to prevent age-related declines in PA and address health disparities among older adults. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available