Cross-sectional analysis examines factors influencing out-of-home activity in older adults post-rehabilitation, suggesting targeted interventions are needed.
Objective To examine physical activity and its spatial context after geriatric rehabilitation and to identify determinants of out-of-home activity in older adults with cognitive impairment. Design Cross-sectional observational study. Setting Community, following discharge from geriatric rehabilitation. Participants 113 geriatric patients (mean age 82.1 ± 6.0 years; 76.1% female) with cognitive impairment following geriatric rehabilitation. Main Measures Physical activity was assessed over 48 h using a body-worn accelerometer (PamSys ® ) and location-based tracking derived from the Global Positioning System (Qstarz BT-Q1000XT). Group differences between participants with and without out-of-home activity were analysed. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors across physical, psycho-social, cognitive, environmental, financial, and personal domains. Results Only 36 (31.9%) of the 113 participants (82.1 ± 6.0 years; 76.1% female) left their homes. Those with out-of-home activity accumulated significantly more daily steps, walking episodes, active time, and less sedentary time than those staying in-home (all p < . 01). Receiver operating characteristic analyses identified thresholds of 2140 steps/day (area under the curve 0.81) and 29.6 s mean walking episode duration (area under the curve 0.73) for discriminating between participants with and without out-of-home activity. Physical capacity (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.02–1.65) and cognitive function (OR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.02–1.62) were independent predictors of out-of-home activity. Conclusion Out-of-home activity is infrequent after rehabilitation in older adults with cognitive impairment and closely reflects overall physical activity. It may serve as a practical marker of mobility and highlights the need for targeted interventions to support community mobility during this vulnerable phase.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ullrich et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: