Facilitators and barriers to real-life mobility in community-dwelling older adults: a narrative review of accelerometry- and global positioning system-based studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real-life mobility, also called "enacted" mobility, characterizes an individual's activity and participation in the community. Real-life mobility may be facilitated or hindered by a variety of factors, such as physical abilities, cognitive function, psychosocial aspects, and external environment characteristics. Advances in technology have allowed for objective quantification of real-life mobility using wearable sensors, specifically, accelerometry and global positioning systems (GPSs). In this review article, first, we summarize the common mobility measures extracted from accelerometry and GPS. Second, we summarize studies assessing the associations of facilitators and barriers influencing mobility of community-dwelling older adults with mobility measures from sensor technology. We found the most used accelerometry measures focus on the duration and intensity of activity in daily life. Gait quality measures, e.g., cadence, variability, and symmetry, are not usually included. GPS has been used to investigate mobility behavior, such as spatial and temporal measures of path traveled, location nodes traversed, and mode of transportation. Factors of note that facilitate/hinder community mobility were cognition and psychosocial influences. Fewer studies have included the influence of external environments, such as sidewalk quality, and socio-economic status in defining enacted mobility. Increasing our understanding of the facilitators and barriers to enacted mobility can inform wearable technology-enabled interventions targeted at delaying mobility-related disability and improving participation of older adults in the community.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".