Skip to main content
. 2020 Jul 28;32(10):1538–1551. doi: 10.1177/0898264320944289

Table 6.

Perceived Environmental Barriers to Outdoor Mobility as Predictors of Use of Adaptive or Maladaptive Walking Modifications over 2-Year Follow-Up in Community-Dwelling Older People.

Barrier Adaptive walking modifications (N = 218)a Maladaptive walking modifications (N = 610)b
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
OR (95% CI) Adjusted p-value OR (95% CI) Adjusted p-value OR (95% CI) Adjusted p-value OR (95% CI) Adjusted p-value
Sum of nature barriers
 1 versus 0 1.0 (.3–3.2) .992 .3 (.1–1.3) .244 2.4 (1.4–3.9) .004 1.9 (1.1–3.2) .058
 2 versus 0 1.2 (.7–2.3) .726 1.0 (.5–2.0) .937 1.7 (1.2–2.5) .023 1.4 (.9–2.1) .244
Sum of infrastructure barriers
 1 versus 0 3.1 (1.0–9.7) .114 1.2 (.3–4.4) .872 1.6 (1.0–2.5) .116 1.3 (.8–2.1) .502
 ≥2 versus 0 .8 (.4–1.8) .770 .5 (.2–1.2) .244 1.2 (.7–1.8) .722 1.0 (.6–1.6) .971
Sum of safety barriers
 1 versus 0 1.9 (.7–5.1) .298 .7 (.3–1.8) .923 1.2 (.7–2.0) .728 .9 (.5–1.6) .872
 ≥2 versus 0 .6 (.3–1.4) .372 .3 (.1–.8) .076 1.4 (.9–2.3) .198 1.3 (.8–2.1) .384
Item specific
 Nature
  Hills in the nearby environment 1.6 (.7–4.1) .446 .9 (.3–2.4) .872 1.7 (1.1–2.5) .056 1.5 (1.0–2.3) .185
  Snow and ice in winter 1.0 (.5–1.7) .926 .6 (.3–1.3) .339 1.8 (1.3–2.6) .004 1.5 (1.1–2.2) .093
 Infrastructure
  Poor street condition .9 (.4–2.0) .883 .5 (.2–1.4) .333 1.5 (1.0–2.3) .136 1.3 (.8–2.0) .406
  High curbs 6.0 (.6–63.5) .240 6.3 (.4–98.6) .340 1.7 (.9–3.5) .237 1.2 (.6–2.6) .809
  Lack of pedestrian zones 1.8 (.3–11.6) .713 1.2 (.1–12.1) .923 1.0 (.3–3.1) .992 1.3 (.4–4.2) .809
  Long distances to services 1.1 (.3–4.0) .977 .3 (.1–1.5) .305 1.0 (.5–1.9) .992 1.0 (.5–1.9) .946
  Lack of resting places, summer 7.3 (1.5–35.3) .040 3.7 (.7–19.1) .261 1.4 (.8–2.3) .354 1.1 (.6–1.9) .872
  Lack of resting places, winter 2.6 (.7–9.2) .248 1.2 (.3–4.7) .893 1.5 (1.0–2.4) .160 1.2 (.7–2.0) .607
  Poor lighting 1.3 (.2–8.0) .896 .7 (.1–6.7) .872 1.2 (.5–2.9) .755 .9 (.4–2.2) .872
 Safety
  Noisy traffic 1.4 (.2–10.5) .854 .6 (.1–5.6) .809 1.0 (.4–2.5) .992 .7 (.3–1.9) .667
  Busy traffic 1.0 (.2–4.0) .992 .8 (.2–3.8) .872 2.0 (1.1–3.6) .082 1.7 (.9–3.2) .256
  Dangerous crossroads 3.7 (1.0–12.7) .107 2.7 (.7–10.8) .321 1.3 (.7–2.2) .610 1.1 (.6–1.9) .893
  Vehicles on walkways .5 (.1–5.8) .727 .2 (.0–3.5) .450 .9 (.2–3.5) .910 .8 (.2–3.4) .872
  Cyclists in the walkways .8 (.4–1.7) .730 .4 (.2–1.1) .173 1.3 (.8–1.9) .446 1.2 (.7–1.8) .704
  Insecurity due to other pedestrians 2.5 (.8–8.0) .237 .9 (.2–3.3) .893 1.0 (.5–2.1) .992 .8 (.4–1.7) .809

Note. Development of adaptive and maladaptive walking modifications was analyzed in separate models by using binary logistic regression models. Model 1: adjusted for age and sex. Model 2: adjusted for age, sex, years of education, depressive symptoms, chronic conditions, and lower extremity function. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval. False discovery rates (adjusted p-values) were calculated to correct for multiple testing. Statistically significant values are bolded.

a

Reference category: no walking modifications.

b

Reference category: no and adaptive walking modifications.