Cross-sectional analysis reveals high prevalence of risk factors in older adults, suggesting targeted health interventions are needed.
Background Behavioural risk factors (BRFs) negatively impact health and well-being across life course, including older age. Data on their prevalence among older adults in Germany are scarce. This study examines prevalence of single BRFs — alcohol use, smoking, insufficient vegetable and fruit consumption, physical inactivity, and obesity — and identifies BRF combinations with a focus on sociodemographic disparities in adults aged 65 years and older. Methods The nationwide Gesundheit 65 + study (06/2021–04/2022) used a two-stage, stratified random sample from residents’ registration offices, and a design tailored to older adults. Data from 3,139 participants with complete information on all BRFs were analysed. Weighted prevalence estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for BRFs, their total number, and combinations were stratified by age, sex, and education. Non-overlapping CIs indicated statistical significance. Results Prevalence estimates were 78.4% for physical inactivity, 71.8% for insufficient vegetable and fruit consumption, 56.3% for alcohol use, 21.0% for obesity, and 9.9% for smoking. Men reported more often than women alcohol use (69.8% vs. 45.2%) and inadequate diet (77.9% vs. 66.7%). Except for inadequate diet, prevalence varied by age and education. Participants averaged 2.4 BRFs; 83.1% reported multiple BRFs. The most frequent combinations were alcohol use + inadequate diet + physical inactivity (21.8%), inadequate diet + physical inactivity (16.0%), and physical inactivity alone (8.3%). Conclusions Multiple BRFs are highly prevalent among older adults in Germany, highlighting the need for comprehensive strategies combining policy measures (e.g. bans on alcohol advertising), community-level interventions (e.g. improved walkability), and targeted individual interventions to promote balanced diet, physical activity, and reduced alcohol use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gaertner et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: