Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35971086›Full record

SynthesisBMC geriatrics2022

How different are objective operationalizations of walkability for older adults compared to the general population? A systematic review.

Zeynep S Akinci, Xavier Delclòs-Alió, Guillem Vich, Deborah Salvo, Jesús Ibarluzea, Carme Miralles-Guasch

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. [Walkability in older age: built environment factors and function-sensitive assessment in urban areas].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Zeynep S AkinciGrup d'Estudis en Mobilitat, Transport i Territori (GEMOTT), Departament de Geografia, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Edifici B, Campus de Bellaterra, 08193, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain. zeynepsila.akinci@uab.cat.
Xavier Delclòs-AlióGrup de Recerca en Anàlisi Territorial i Estudis Turístics (GRATET), Departament de Geografia, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Vila-seca, Spain.
Guillem VichGrup d'Estudis en Mobilitat, Transport i Territori (GEMOTT), Departament de Geografia, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Edifici B, Campus de Bellaterra, 08193, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain.
Deborah SalvoPeople, Health and Place Unit; Prevention Research Center in St. Louis; Brown School; Washington University in St Louis , St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Jesús IbarluzeaMinistry of Health of the Basque Government, Sub-Directorate for Public Health and Addictions of Gipuzkoa, 20013, San Sebastian, Spain.
Carme Miralles-GuaschGrup d'Estudis en Mobilitat, Transport i Territori (GEMOTT), Departament de Geografia, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Edifici B, Campus de Bellaterra, 08193, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWalking is an essential activity for everyone and for older adults in particular, given that it is the most accessible form of physical activity and one of the healthiest transportation modes. Understanding how walkability (the potential of the environment to enable and/or encourage walking) has been objectively measured and analyzed for older adults is critical to create more inclusive, healthy, and sustainable environments and to promote healthy aging. Despite the numerous reviews on physical activity among older adults and its relationship with the built environment, the literature still lacks comparison reviews focusing specifically on objective operationalizations of walkability for older adults vs. the general population.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of 146 empirical studies that measured walkability objectively in relation to walking-related outcomes. We compared studies focused on older adults (n = 24) and the general population (n = 122). Content analysis included the characteristics of the study design, walkability measures, spatial extent, and associations found between walkability and walking-related outcomes.

resultsIn both groups of publications, the majority of studies were conducted in the US, Canada, and Europe, and largely in high-income countries. They were mostly published in health-related journals and used cross-sectional designs, operationalized walkability by using indexes, employed self-reported measures for walking-related outcomes, and found positive associations between walkability and walking outcomes. However, we observed some differences among studies focusing on older adults. Compared to studies focusing on the general population, a larger proportion of studies on older adults was conducted in the Middle East and Asia, and they used longitudinal designs, mixed methods to measure walking-related outcomes, variables related with land-use characteristics, safety from traffic and crime, and greenery, and a larger proportion found positive, as well as no associations between walkability and walking-related outcomes.

conclusionAlthough there is a promising increase in interest in older adults-focused walkability studies in the last decade, there is still a need for more studies focusing on different settings, using wider spatial extents, longitudinal designs, objective or mixed methods to collect outcome data, and specific variables and/or specially created indexes for older adults and for settings.

Indexed as

Environment DesignResidence CharacteristicsAgedCross-Sectional StudiesExerciseHumansWalkingBuilt environmentOlder adultsPhysical activitySystematic literature reviewWalkabilityWalking

Identifiers

PMID35971086
PMCPMC9377138

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.