Abstract
Objective The Getting Older Adults Outdoors randomized trial showed a 10-week outdoor walk group (OWG) program was not superior to 10 weekly phone reminders on increasing physical and mental health; however, OWG attendance varied. This study examined whether a dose-response relationship existed between OWG attendance and improvement in physical and mental health among older adults with mobility limitations.
Methods We analyzed data from 98 older adults randomized to a 10-week park-based OWG program. Participants were classified as attending 0–9, 10–15, and 16–20 OWG sessions based on attendance tertiles. Outcomes included change in scores on measures of walking endurance, comfortable and fast walking speed, balance, lower extremity strength, walking self-efficacy, and emotional well-being pre- to post-intervention.
Results Seventy-nine older adults with complete information on the seven health outcomes were included (age=74.7±6.6 years, 72% female). Compared to those who attended 0–9 OWG sessions, participants attending 16–20 sessions exhibited a 52.7-meter greater improvement in walking endurance (95% CI:12.3, 93.1); 0.15-meter/second greater improvement in comfortable walking speed (95% CI:0.00, 0.29); and 0.17-meter/second greater improvement in fast walking speed (95% CI:0.02, 0.33). Higher attendance was also associated with higher odds of experiencing an improvement in walking self-efficacy (OR=4.03; 95% CI:1.05, 16.85) and fast walking speed (OR=9.00, 95% CI:1.59, 61.73). No significant dose-response relationships for balance, lower extremity strength, and emotional well-being were observed.
Conclusions Higher attendance in outdoor walking interventions is associated with greater improvements in walking endurance, walking speed, and walking self-efficacy among older adults with mobility limitations.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
NCT03292510
Clinical Protocols
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31005945/
Funding Statement
Yes
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Research Ethics Board at the University of Toronto approved the trial protocol and this secondary data analysis (Protocol # 00035251).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Data Availability
We did not obtain permission from the Research Ethics Boards at the University of Alberta, University of Manitoba, University of Toronto or McGill University for public availability of the data, nor did we obtain consent for public access to the data from participants. We are therefore unable make the data public. However, data are available on reasonable request and subject to research ethics board review by contacting the corresponding author or the Health Sciences Research Ethics Board at the University of Toronto at ethics.review{at}utoronto.ca.
