4.6 Article

Acceptable walking and cycling distances and functional disability and mortality in older Japanese adults: An 8-year follow-up study

期刊

HEALTH & PLACE
卷 79, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2022.102952

关键词

Physical activity; Walkability; Bikeability; Active travel; Mobility limitation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We conducted a prospective study to investigate the relationship between acceptable travel distances (walking and cycling) and the incidence of functional disability and mortality among older Japanese adults. A baseline survey was conducted in 2013 among 7618 individuals aged >= 65 years in Kasama City, Japan, with follow-up until 2021. Shorter acceptable walking and cycling distances were found to be significantly associated with higher risks of functional disability and mortality, according to a multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional-hazards model. In conclusion, acceptable distances of <500 m for walking and <1 km for cycling were associated with increased risks of functional disability and mortality among older adults.
We prospectively investigated the association between acceptable travel distances (i.e., walking and cycling) and the incidence of functional disability and mortality among older Japanese adults. A baseline survey was con-ducted in 2013 among 7618 individuals aged >= 65 years in Kasama City, Japan, and they were tracked through the city's database until 2021. Acceptable travel distances were assessed using a questionnaire. Outcomes (i.e., functional disability and mortality) were gathered as binary (incident or not) with survival time. A multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional-hazards model indicated that shorter acceptable walking and cycling distances were markedly linked with higher risks of functional disability and mortality. In conclusion, acceptable distances of <500 m for walking and <1 km for cycling were associated with higher risks of functional disability and mortality among older adults.

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