Mobility enhancement among older adults 75 + in rural areas: Study protocol of the MOBILE randomized controlled trial

[What importance does outpatient care have for mobility in rural areas? Results from a GPS study among persons aged 75 and older]

BACKGROUND

Out-of-home mobility, defined as active and passive movement through external environments, is a resource for autonomy, quality of life, and self-realization in older age. Various factors influence out-of-home mobility, primarily studied in urban settings. The study aims to examine associated factors in a study population aged 75 and above in rural areas.

METHODS

Baseline data from the MOBILE trial involving 212 participants aged 75 and above and collected between June 2021 and October 2022 were analyzed. Out-of-home mobility was measured temporally as time out of home (TOH) and spatially as convex hull (CHull) using GPS over seven days. Mixed models considered outpatient care parameters as well as personal, social, and environmental factors along with covariates such as age and gender.

RESULTS

Participants in the MOBILE study (average age 81.5; SD: 4.1; 56.1% female) exhibited average out-of-home mobility of TOH: 319.3 min (SD: 196.3) and CHull: 41.3 (SD: 132.8). Significant associations were found for age (TOH: ß = -0.039, p < 0.001), social network (TOH: ß = 0.123, p < 0.001), living arrangement (CHull: ß = 0.689, p = 0.035), health literacy (CHull: ß = 0.077, p = 0.008), sidewalk quality (ß = 0.366, p = 0.003), green space ratio (TOH: ß = 0.005, p = 0.047), outpatient care utilization (TOH: ß = -0.637, p < 0.001, CHull: ß = 1.532; p = 0.025), and active driving (TOH: ß = -0.361, p = 0.004).

DISCUSSION

Previously known multifactorial associations related to objectively measured out-of-home mobility in old age could be confirmed in rural areas. Novel and relevant for research and practice is the significant correlation between out-of-home mobility and outpatient care utilization.

Interventions to improve outdoor mobility among people living with disabilities: A systematic review

Background

Around 15% of the global population live with some form of disabilities and experience worse health outcomes, less participation in the community and are part of fewer activities outside the home. Outdoor mobility interventions aim to improve the ability to move, travel and orient outside the home and could influence the number of activities outside the home, participation and quality of life. However, outdoor mobility interventions may also lead to harm like falls or injuries or have unforeseen effects which could lead to mortality or hospitalization.

Objectives

To assess the efficacy of interventions aiming to improve outdoor mobility for adults living with disabilities and to explore if the efficacy varies between different conditions and different intervention components.

Search Methods

Standard, extensive Campbell search methods were used, including a total of 12 databases searched during January 2023, including trial registries.

Selection Criteria

Only randomized controlled trials were included, focusing on people living with disabilities, comparing interventions to improve outdoor mobility to control interventions as well as comparing different types of interventions to improve outdoor mobility.

Data Collection and Analysis

Standard methodological procedures expected by Campbell were used. The following important outcomes were 1. Activity outside the home; 2. Engagement in everyday life activities; 3. Participation; 4. Health-related Quality of Life; 5. Major harms; 6. Minor harms. The impact of the interventions was evaluated in the shorter (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) after starting the intervention. Results are presented using risk ratios (RR), risk difference (RD), and standardized mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias 2-tool and the GRADE-framework were used to assess the certainty of the evidence.

Main Results

The screening comprised of 12.894 studies and included 22 studies involving 2.675 people living with disabilities and identified 12 ongoing studies. All reported outcomes except one (reported in one study, some concerns of bias) had overall high risk of bias. Thirteen studies were conducted in participants with disabilities due to stroke, five studies with older adults living with disabilities, two studies with wheelchair users, one study in participants with disabilities after a hip fracture, and one study in participants with cognitive impairments. Skill training interventions versus control interventions (16 studies) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of skill training interventions versus control interventions not aimed to improve outdoor mobility among all people living with disabilities both in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for Activity outside the home; Participation; Health-related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. Skill training interventions may improve engagement in everyday life activities among people with disabilities in the shorter term (RR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.84; I 2 = 7%; RD: 0.15; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.32; I 2 = 71%; 692 participants; three studies; low certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain in the longer term, based on very low certainty evidence. Subgroup analysis of skill training interventions among people living with disabilities due to cognitive impairments suggests that such interventions may improve activity outside the home in the shorter term (SMD: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.81; I 2 = NA; 118 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis of skill training interventions among people living with cognitive impairments suggests that such interventions may improve health-related quality of life in the shorter term (SMD: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.88; I 2 = NA; 118 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Physical training interventions versus control interventions (five studies) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of physical training interventions versus control interventions not aimed to improve outdoor mobility in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for: Engagement in everyday life activities; Participation; Health-related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. Physical training interventions may improve activity outside the home in the shorter (SMD: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.61; I 2 = NA; 228 participants; one study; low certainty evidence) and longer term (≥7 months) (SMD: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.54; I 2 = NA; 216 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Comparison of different outdoor mobility interventions (one study) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of outdoor mobility interventions of different lengths in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for Activity outside the home; Engagement in everyday life activities; Participation; Health-related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. No studies explored the efficacy of other types of interventions.

Authors’ Conclusions

Twenty-two studies of interventions to improve outdoor mobility for people living with disabilities were identified, but the evidence still remains uncertain about most benefits and harms of these interventions, both in the short- and long term. This is primarily related to risk of bias, small underpowered studies and limited reporting of important outcomes for people living with disabilities. For people with disabilities, skill training interventions may improve engagement in everyday life in the short term, and improve activity outside the home and health-related quality of life for people with cognitive impairments in the short term. Still, this is based on low certainty evidence from few studies and should be interpreted with caution. One study with low certainty evidence suggests that physical training interventions may improve activity outside the home in the short term. In addition, the effect sizes across all outcomes were considered small or trivial, and could be of limited relevance to people living with disabilities. The evidence is currently uncertain if there are interventions that can improve outdoor mobility for people with disabilities, and can improve other important outcomes, while avoiding harms. To guide decisions about the use of interventions to improve outdoor mobility, future studies should use more rigorous design and report important outcomes for people with disabilities to reduce the current uncertainty.

Real-World Walking Speed Assessment Using a Mass-Market RTK-GNSS Receiver

Walking speed is an important clinical parameter because it sums up the ability to move and predicts adverse outcomes. However, usually measured inside the clinics, it can suffer from poor ecological validity. Wearable devices such as global positioning systems (GPS) can be used to measure real-world walking speed. Still, the accuracy of GPS systems decreases in environments with poor sky visibility. This work tests a solution based on a mass-market, real-time kinematic receiver (RTK), overcoming such limitations. Seven participants walked a predefined path composed of tracts with different sky visibility. The walking speed was calculated by the RTK and compared with a reference value calculated using an odometer and a stopwatch. Despite tracts with totally obstructed visibility, the correlation between the receiver and the reference system was high (0.82 considering all tracts and 0.93 considering high-quality tracts). Similarly, a Bland Altman analysis showed a minimal detectable change of 0.12 m/s in the general case and 0.07 m/s considering only high-quality tracts. This work demonstrates the feasibility and validity of the presented device for the measurement of real-world walking speed, even in tracts with high interference. These findings pave the way for clinical use of the proposed device to measure walking speed in the real world, thus enabling digital remote monitoring of locomotor function. Several populations may benefit from similar devices, including older people at a high risk of fall, people with neurological diseases, and people following a rehabilitation intervention.