4.6 Article

Association Between Physical Performance and Sense of Autonomy in Outdoor Activities and Life-Space Mobility in Community-Dwelling Older People

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 62, 期 4, 页码 615-621

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.12763

关键词

activity; physical functioning; participation; mobility limitation; aging

资金

  1. Academy of Finland (future of living and housing program ASU-LIVE [255403, 251723]
  2. Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To study the relationship between physical performance and sense of autonomy in outdoor activities with life-space mobility-the spatial area a person purposefully moves through in daily life-in community-dwelling older people. Design Cross-sectional analyses of baseline data of the Life-Space Mobility in Old Age cohort study. Setting Structured interviews in participants' homes. Participants Community-dwelling people aged 75 to 90 (N=848). Measurements Sense of autonomy outdoors (Impact on Participation and Autonomy questionnaire subscale), life-space mobility (Life-Space Assessment; University of Alabama, Birmingham Study of Aging), and Short Physical Performance Battery. Results The median score for life-space mobility was 64.0. In linear regression models, poorer physical performance and more-limited sense of autonomy were independently associated with more restrictions in life-space mobility, explaining approximately one-third of the variation in life-space mobility. Physical performance also had an indirect effect on life-space mobility through sense of autonomy outdoors. Subgroup analyses of 5-year age groups and sex revealed that the associations were somewhat stronger in women and the oldest age group. Conclusion Physical performance and sense of autonomy in outdoor activities explained a substantial portion of the variation in life-space mobility in healthy older people, indicating that physical and psychosocial factors play a role in maintaining mobility in old age.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据