4.4 Article

Predictors of cessation of regular leisure-time physical activity in community-dwelling elderly people

期刊

GERONTOLOGY
卷 53, 期 5, 页码 293-297

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000103214

关键词

regular physical activity, elderly people; predictor, activity cessation; walking speed

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Maintaining regular physical activity is important for physical and mental health, providing benefits including protection against chronic disease. However, little is known about the causes of cessation of habitual physical activity in older people. Objectives: To identify predictors of cessation of regular physical activity in community-dwelling elderly people. Methods: 582 community-dwelling people aged 70 years and over who were living in Tokyo, Japan, were surveyed regarding physical activity levels 2 years after completing an initial survey where they indicated they took part in physical activity at least 5 days a week. Baseline demographic, health, physical functioning and psychological status measures were used as predictors of exercise cessation. Results: At the 2-year follow up, 192 subjects (33%) had ceased taking part in regular physical activity. In univariate analyses, women, smokers, those who reported a fear of falling and those with a slower walking speed at baseline were significantly more likely to cease regular physical activity. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified 3 of these variables as significant and independent predictors of activity cessation: female gender (adjusted OR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.13-2.47); smoking (OR = 2.34, 95% CI = 1.33-4.13), and slow walking speed (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.07-2.98). Conclusions: The study identified simple screening measures for identifying elderly people at risk of ceasing regular physical activity. Currently active older people with these factors may benefit from counseling and interventions to enable them to continue participating in regular physical activity. Copyright (c) 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel.

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

4.4
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