Indoor mobility challenges among older adults: A systematic review of barriers and limitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The global population is projected to double by 2050 with most older adults expressing preference to age in place. Despite this demographic shift, indoor mobility challenges which directly impact independence, safety and quality of life remains poorly understudied, creating a critical knowledge gap for effective intervention development. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted on four databases from inception to September 2024. Inclusion criteria included: (1) participants aged 60 years and above; (2) were primary data on self-reported indoor mobility challenges; and (3) published in English language. Two reviewers independently performed data abstraction, evaluated the risk-of-bias and quality of included article using the NewCastle Ottawa Scale for cross-sectional or Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for qualitative studies. Thematic synthesis with constant comparison analysis identified key mobility constraint factors. RESULTS: Nine studies encompassing 1,833 participants were identified. Older adults reported four main indoor mobility challenges: fatigability, poor balance, home environmental barriers, reduced strength and limb weakness. These limitations contributed to reduced endurance, even in indoor settings. The presence of various health conditions further compromised their mobility and ability to age in place healthily. CONCLUSION: To support ageing in place, a comprehensive environmental assessments and home modifications can be considered. Multi-stakeholder collaborations are needed to support the independence, safety, and quality of life of older adults who wish to age in place. Further research is warranted in suburban and rural areas to explore socioeconomic factors and determinants of indoor mobility.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".