Skip to main content

Physical functioning associated with life-space mobility in later life among men and women

Abstract

Background

Life-space mobility is defined as the ability to access different areas extending from the room where the person sleeps to places outside one’s hometown. Life-space mobility is vital to support performance of daily life activities and autonomous participation in social life. However, there is a dearth of research that investigates a wider range of physical functions and functioning in relation to life-space mobility rather than just single aspects. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to identify and describe several measures of physical functioning associated with life-space mobility among older men and women.

Methods

Data used in this study was derived from the OCTO 2 study, a population-based study of health, functioning and mobility among older persons (n = 312) in Sweden. Associations between Life-Space Assessment (LSA) total score and age, sex, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), dizziness, lung function i.e. Peak Expiratory Flow (PEF), grip strength, self-rated vision and hearing were analysed through bivariate and multivariate regression models.

Results

The bivariate models showed that life-space mobility was significantly associated with sex, but also age, SPPB, PEF and grip strength in the total group as well as among men and women. In addition, hearing was significantly associated with life-space mobility among women. Those factors that were statistically significant in the bivariate models were further analysed in multivariable models for the total group, and for men and women separately. In these models, sex, grip strength and SPPB remained significantly associated with life-space mobility in the total group, as well as SPPB among both men and women.

Conclusion

Sex, physical function in terms of physical performance measured by SPPB (balance, gait speed and chair stand), and grip strength are associated with life-space mobility. Consequently, these factors need to be considered in assessments and interventions aiming to maintain mobility in old age.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Life-space mobility can be defined as the ability to access different areas defined as life-spaces extending from the room where the person sleeps, to places outside one’s hometown [1, 2]. Life-space mobility is vital to support performance of daily life activities and autonomous participation in social life [3,4,5]. The importance of life-space mobility remains, even though many virtual mobility options today are available to satisfy a person’s social and practical needs in daily life. In fact, being able to physically move oneself to places for activities dependent on face-to-face interaction has some clear advantages [6]. For example, the possibility to actively visit other people or arenas to access social activities, rather than being dependent on others visiting you, is likely to promote a sense of belonging and social inclusion, and may decrease loneliness [7]. Not least, being able to transfer or transport oneself supports the performance of activities important to satisfy basic human needs. These could be activities related to acquiring food and shelter or to remaining engaged in society and social life [8, 9]. In addition, life-space mobility often includes physical activity, with its well-documented positive implications on human health [10].

In later life, however, there is a risk of limitations in life-space mobility for several reasons such as driving cessation [11], lack of transportation, or environmental demands [12, 13]. This risk is evident also in Sweden and other Western countries despite general good accessibility in public environments and in housing [14]. Furthermore, previous studies have identified risks of developing life-space mobility restrictions related to physical performance [15], hearing difficulties [16] or disability in Activities of Daily Living (ADL) [17], and life-space mobility has been related to gait quality [18]. Recent studies also show that cognitive limitations may be detected by gait speed and life-space mobility assessments [19] and that physical activity levels during hospitalisation are associated with life-space mobility in stroke survivors following discharge [20]. These studies address single impairments, (e.g., physical performance or hearing), but it is rare that a wider range of physical functions and functioning associated with life-space mobility (e.g., physical performance and hearing etc.) among older men and women is considered in the same study. More knowledge about older people’s mobility, and the association of different factors related to mobility limitations is needed to guide and evaluate interventions aiming to promote life-space mobility in later life. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to identify and describe physical functioning associated with life-space mobility among older men and women. The hypothesis was that a range of physical functioning aspects are associated with life-space mobility among Swedish older men and women.

Method

Participants and data collection

Data used in this study was derived from the OCTO 2-study, a population-based study that was set up with the main aim of investigating health, social networks, physical activity, physical and mental functioning and mobility among older persons in Sweden [21,22,23]. The study was approved by the regional ethical committee in Linköping, Sweden (#225–08), and the research was conducted in accordance with Swedish law and the Declaration of Helsinki. The randomly selected sample was obtained from a population register, including men and women, 75, 80, 85, or 90 years-old, living in Jönköping County Council, Sweden, in 2009 and 2010. Persons for whom we had information from relatives or staff that they suffered from dementia, were excluded from the study. The original aim was to include 450 participants, based on a random sample of 600 individuals. However, an additional random sample was conducted to reach the final sample of 327 participants who voluntarily chose to participate and gave their informed written consent. Trained, registered research nurses performed data collection, i.e. interviews and tests of physical performance, during home visits. During the interviews, the participants responded to a large set of questions on subjects including lifestyle, social relationships, ADL, health, physical functioning and mobility. They also reported on personal characteristics such as their marital status, type of housing, type of living area, use of assistive devices and whether they currently drove a car or not. The present study excluded participants living in nursing homes (n = 10), and those who had not responded to the Life-Space Assessment (LSA, see below n = 5) yielding an analytical sample of 312 community-dwelling participants. Most of the participants received no care (61%), 19% received informal care only, and 20% received formal care.

Instruments and variables

Life-Space Assessment (LSA) was the outcome of interest in this study. The LSA includes six levels of life-space, ranging from the person’s bedroom (Life-space 0) to places beyond the person’s hometown (Life-space 5) [24]. For each of these six levels, the person is asked how often they have been to that specific life-space area during the last four weeks, and whether they did so independently or needed assistance from another person or equipment. A total LSA score is obtained by multiplying the life-space level reached (1–5) by the value for the frequency of transportation (1–4) for each life-space level, as well as by the value for independence (2, 1.5, or 1), and then summarising the scores of the five levels. The total score can range from 0 (totally confined to bedroom) to 120 (independent, with daily out-of-town mobility).

To identify possible associations with life-space mobility, age in years (75, 80, 85 and 90 years of age) and sex (men and women) were used as independent variables together with the OCTO 2 variables that targeted physical functioning, namely:

  • Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), utilised to assess older persons physical performance [25], was used as a "total score” summarising the three different subtest scores, i.e. “total balance” including a hierarchical test of standing balance, “gait speed” during a three-metre walk and “chair stand” including five repetitive chair stands, ranging from 1 (poor ability) to 12 (good ability).

  • Self-reported dizziness (1 = none/2 = mild/3 = substantial) was based on two questions. All participants were asked if they experienced dizziness (yes/no). Persons with perceived dizziness also responded to the University of California Los Angeles Dizziness Questionnaire (UCLA-DQ) [26] including questions about the frequency and intensity of dizziness, rated from 1 (least severe) to 5 (most severe) respectively. Subjects who reported the least severe response choice for the items of frequency (rarely) and/or intensity (very mild) were categorised as having mild dizziness, and subjects reporting more severe symptoms were categorised as having substantial dizziness [27]. For the linear models the variable was dichotomised none/mild vs. substantial.

  • Peek Expiratory Flow (PEF) measured in litres per minute. The participants blow twice forcefully into a Peak Flow Metre (best result out of the two recorded, z-standardised for men and women).

  • Grip strength measured using Vigorimeter® [28] measured in kilopascal (kpa) (best result out of possibly three, for dominant hand, z-standardised for men and women). The large ball was used for men and a medium-sized ball was used for women.

  • Self-rated vision with or without glasses (1 = very good vision/2 = good vision/3 = fairly good/4 = bad/5 = very bad). For the linear models the variable was dichotomised good (1–2) vs. bad (3–5).

  • Self-rated hearing with or without hearing aid (1 = very good hearing/2 = good hearing/3 = fairly good/4 = bad/5 = very bad). For the linear models the variable was dichotomised good (1–2) vs. bad (3–5).

Analysis

SPSS version 26 was used for the statistical analysis. Non-parametric statistics (Mann–Whitney U-test and χ2) were used to identify differences between men and women in background characteristics, life-space mobility and physical functioning. The independent variables, as listed above, were first entered into bivariate linear regression models using the LSA total score as the dependent variable, to identify factors significantly associated with life-space mobility. This was done for the total group, as well as for men and women separately. In the next step, factors identified as significant in the bivariate models, were entered into multivariable linear regression models for the total group, as well as for men and women. Unstandardised regression coefficients and 95% confidence intervals were derived by the regression analyses. A p-value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results

Considering the characteristics of the sample (Table 1), some differences were statistically significant when comparing men and women. For example, men were more often married, and women more often widowed. Compared to women, men were also more often living in their own house and still driving a car.

Table 1 Characteristics of the study sample and group comparison (n = 312)

The bivariate models showed that life-space mobility was significantly associated with sex, but also age, SPPB, PEF and grip strength in the total group as well as among men and women (Table 2). In addition, hearing was significantly associated with life-space mobility in women.

Table 2 Factors associated with life-space mobility in the bivariate linear regression models

When further analysing the factors that were statistically significant according to the bivariate models (Table 2) for total group sex, grip strength and SPPB remained significant in the multivariable model for the total group. However, in the gender-specific models only SPPB remained significant (Table 3).

Table 3 Factors associated with life-space mobility in the multivariable linear regression models

Discussion

The present study identified and described physical functioning associated with life-space mobility among older men and women. A range of physical functioning aspects, namely physical performance, lung function, grip strength, vision, hearing and dizziness were considered. Together with sex, only the combined measure of physical performance (SPPB, including balance, gait speed and chair stand) and grip strength were connected to life-space mobility. In the gender-specific multivariable models only SPPB was connected to life-space mobility. The women in the group had a significantly lower LSA total score compared to the men, although the total group had a high total score. The significantly lower LSA total score for women may be due to the fact that women in this study drove their own car to a lesser extent than the men. This may be disadvantageous to women since the car brings unique and more flexible opportunities to reach more distant life-spaces in later life [29]. Similar findings have also been noted before in similar populations [8]. However, there were also other significant differences between men and women in our sample that may have impacted on our findings, for example the women used assistive devices to a greater extent than the men in the study.

It is not surprising that physical performance (SPPB) that supports walking ability was connected to LSA. Walking represents a common link of the travel chain (walking from the home to the car or bus stop, from the car or bus to the final destination etc.) and is thereby vital to reach different life-spaces. This result is also similar to the result of a previous study showing that poorer physical performance is associated with more life-space mobility restrictions, as well as has an indirect effect on sense of autonomy outdoors [15].

While restricted life-space mobility could be an early sign of vulnerability [17], our findings identified that another proxy of frailty, grip strength, also in turn was associated with life-space mobility in the total sample. However, gender differences observed in previous studies [30,31,32] did not apply to our study. For example, Sternäng et al. [30], found gender differences, not only in grip strength, but in the type of factors associated with grip strength performance and decline. More specifically, grip strength decline was associated with stress, smoking and dementia for women, and marital status, mean arterial pressure, physical activity at work and having a chronic disorder for men. de Araújo Amaral et al. [31] concluded that factors associated with low hand grip strength differs between sexes, and was associated with physical activity for example only among women. And finally, Ernsth Bravell et al. [32] women demonstrated more difficulties with fine motor functions, and fine motor functions were predictive of mortality only for women, not for men.

Fine motor function as in grip strength may be seen as a proxy for frailty or vulnerability, that in the long run may cause a cascade of severe outcomes, such as falls, fractures, and hospitalisations, that lead to limited life-space mobility and mortality. Also, both female gender and lower physical function are associated with fear of falling and fear of falling-associated activity restriction [33], which may also influence life-space mobility [34]

This reasoning also implies that grip strength, as well as lung function (PEF) would play an even more significant role in a less healthy sample of older adults. Several studies i.e. [30] conclude that women demonstrate lower grip strength in comparison to men beyond the expected differences. As mentioned above, beyond the general sex differences in muscle strength across ages, the lower grip strength is usually explained by the fact that women have more chronic conditions that will impact functioning in different ways. Men, on the other hand, are less likely to have chronic conditions that impact motor functioning, but suffer more from acute, fatal, diseases [35, 36]. Factors related to motor function, such as grip strength, are important to notice, given that they not only affect daily living, but also the life-space mobility and mortality. In contrast to a previous study [16], hearing was only associated with life-space mobility in women in the bivariate models. Unlike that previous study, our data did not consider the magnitude, but rather the patient reported presence of hearing problems.

It can be of value to identify different types of functioning before they result in reduced mobility on an individual level. The results also highlight the importance of considering the gender differences both in practical settings and when designing future studies in the area. Even though chronic conditions, mostly present among women, are not considered life-threatening, they may severely affect mobility and in the long run, mortality.

Limitations

The present study uses already collected data to respond to the purpose of the present study. Although the existing database included some relevant variables, it would be interesting as well as relevant to include other variables representing physical functioning in future studies, to further explore how a wider range of physical functioning is related to life-space mobility. It should be noted that the men and women included differed significantly in several background characteristics (marital status, living area, car driving) and it would be relevant to further study these issues based on a more homogeneous sample of men and women. It should also be noted that the sample size in the stratified analyses by sex was rather limited in the present study, leading to low power in these analyses. Similar to many other gerontological studies, the database includes a rather healthy sample, which could explain some of our findings as described above and may also limit the generalisability of our findings.

Conclusion

Physical function in terms of physical performance (balance, gait speed and chair stand) and grip strength are associated with life-space mobility. Consequently, these factors need to be considered in assessments and interventions aiming to maintain mobility in old age.

Availability of data and materials

Data used in the present study are available upon request from the corresponding author at sofi.fristedt@ju.se.

Abbreviations

LSA:

Life-Space Assessment

SPPB:

Short Physical Performance Battery

References

  1. May D, Nayak USL, Isaacs B. The life-space diary: a measure of mobility in old people at home. Int Rehabil Med. 1985;7:182–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Peel C, Sawyer Baker P, Roth DL, Brown CJ, Bodner EV, Allman RM. Assessing Mobility in Older Adults: The UAB Study og Aging Life-Space Assessment. Phys Ther. 2005;85(10):1008–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fristedt S. Occupational participation through community mobility among older men and women. Jönköping: Jönköping University; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Portegijs E, Rantakokko M, Viljanen A, Sipilä S, Rantanen T. Is frailty associated with life-space mobility and perceived autonomy in participation outdoors? Longitudinal Study Age Ageing. 2016;45(4):550–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gagliardi C, Spazzafumo L, Marcellini F, Mollenkopf H, Ruoppila I, Tacken M, Szémann Z. The outdoor mobility and leisure activities of older people in five European countries. Ageing Soc. 2007;27:683–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fristedt S, Björklund A. A Wretstrand, Falkmer T: Continuing participation at old age is an act of negotiation. 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ziegler F, Schwanen T. “I like to go out to be energised by different people”: an exploratory analysis of mobility and wellbeing in later life. Ageing Soc. 2011;31:758–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fristedt S, Dahl AK, Wretstrand A, Björklund A, Falkmer T. Changes in Community Mobility in Older Men and Women. A 13-Year Prospective Study. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e87827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wilcock AA, Hocking C: An Occupational Perspective of Health. Thorofare: SLACK Incorporated; 2015.

  10. Zubala A, MacGillivray S, Frost H, Kroll T, Skelton DA, Gavine A, Gray NM, Toma M, Morris J. Promotion of physical activity interventions for community dwelling older adults: A systematic review of reviews. PLoS One. 2017;12(7): e0180902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Huisingh C, Levitan EB, Sawyer P, Kennedy R, Brown CJ, McGwin G. Impact of driving cessation on trajectories of life-space scores among community-dwelling older adults. J Appl Gerontol. 2017;36(12):1433–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dickerson AE, Molnar LJ, Bédard M, Eby DW, Berg-Weger M, Choi M, Grigg J, Horowitz A, Meuser T, Myers A, et al. Transportation and aging: an updated research agenda to advance safe mobility among older adults transitioning from driving to non-driving. Gerontologist. 2017;59(2):215–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Viljanen A, Mikkola TM, Rantakokko M, Portegijs E, Rantanen T. The association between transportation and life-space mobility in community-dwelling older people with or without walking difficulties. J Aging Health. 2016;28(6):1038–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wretstrand A, Svensson H, Fristedt S, Falkmer T. Older people and local public transit: Mobility effects of accessibility improvements in Sweden. J Transp Land Use. 2009;2(2):49–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Portegijs E, Rantakokko M, Mikkola TM, Viljanen A, Rantanen T. Association between physical performance and sense of autonomy in outdoor activities and life-space mobility in community-dwelling older people. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62(4):615–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Polku H, Mikkola TM, Rantakokko M, Portegijs E, Törmäkangas T, Rantanen T, Viljanen A. Self-reported hearing difficulties and changes in life-space mobility among community-dwelling older adults: a Two-year follow-Up study. BMC Geriatr. 2015;15(1):121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Portegijs E, Rantakokko M, Viljanen A, Sipilä S, Rantanen T. Identification of Older People at Risk of ADL Disability Using the Life-Space Assessment: A Longitudinal Cohort Study. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2016;17(5):410–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Suri A, Rosso AL, VanSwearingen J, Coffman LM, Redfern MS, Brach JS, et al. Mobility of older adults: gait quality measures are associated with life-space assessment scores. J Gerontol A. 2021;76(10):e299–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ishihara K, Izawa KP, Kitamura M, Ogawa M, Shimogai T, Kanejima Y, et al. Gait speed, life-space mobility and mild cognitive impairment in patients with coronary artery disease. Heart Vessels. 2021;36(2):147–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kimura Y, Nishio N, Abe Y, Ogawa H, Taguchi R, Otobe Y, et al. Relationship between physical activity levels during rehabilitation hospitalization and life-space mobility following discharge in stroke survivors: a multicenter prospective study. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2021;28(7):1–7.

  21. Kammerlind A-SC, Fristedt S, Ernsth-Bravell M, Fransson E. Test-retest reliability of the Swedish version of the life-space assessment questionnaire among community-dwelling older adults. Clin Rehabil. 2014;28(8):817–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kammerlind A-SC, ErnsthBravell M, Fransson EI. Prevalence of and factors related to mild and substantial dizziness in community-dwelling older adults: a cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatrics. 2016;16(1):159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fristedt S, Kammerlind A-S, Bravell ME, Fransson EI. Concurrent validity of the Swedish version of the life-space assessment questionnaire. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16(1):181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Baker PS, Bodner E, Allman RM. Measuring Life-Space Mobility in Community-Dwelling Older Adults. J Anim Physiol Nutr. 2003;51:1610–4.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Glynn RJ, Berkman LF, Glazer DG, Scherr PA, Wallace RB. A Short Physical Performance Battery Assessing Lower Extremity Function: Association With Self-Reported Disability and Prediction of Mortality and Nursing Home Admission. J Gerontol: Med Sci. 1994;49(2):M85–94.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Honrubia V, Bell TS, Harris MR, Baloh RW, Fisher LM. Quantitative evaluation of dizziness characteristics and impact on quality of life. Am J Otol. 1996;17(4):595–602.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kammerlind AS, Ledin TE, Odkvist LM, Skargren EI. Recovery after acute unilateral vestibular loss and predictors for remaining symptoms. Am J Otolaryngol. 2011;32(5):366–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. De Dobbeleer L, Theou O, Beyer I, Jones GR, Jakobi JM, Bautmans I. Martin Vigorimeter assesses muscle fatigability in older adults better than the Jamar Dynamometer. Exp Gerontol. 2018;111:65–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Unsworth C, Dickerson A, Gélinas I, Harries P, Margot-Cattin I, Mazer B, et al. Linking people and activities through community mobility: an international comparison of the mobility patterns of older drivers and non-drivers. Ageing Soc. 2021:1–26.

  30. Sternäng O, Reynolds CA, Finkel D, Ernsth-Bravell M, Pedersen NL, Dahl Aslan AK. Factors associated with grip strength decline in older adults. Age Ageing. 2015;44(2):269–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. de Araújo AC, Amaral TLM, Monteiro GTR, de Vasconcellos MTL, Portela MC. Factors associated with low handgrip strength in older people: data of the Study of Chronic Diseases (Edoc-I). BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bravell ME, Finkel D, Dahl Aslan A, Reynolds CA, Hallgren J, Pedersen NL. Motor functioning differentially predicts mortality in men and women. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2017;72:6–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Denkinger MD, Lukas A, Nikolaus T, Hauer K. Factors Associated with Fear of Falling and Associated Activity Restriction in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2015;23(1):72–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Auais M, Alvarado B, Guerra R, Curcio C, Freeman EE, Ylli A, Guralnik J, Deshpande N. Fear of falling and its association with life-space mobility of older adults: a cross-sectional analysis using data from five international sites. Age Ageing. 2017;46(3):459–65.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Crimmins EM, Kim JK, Solé-Auró A. Gender differences in health: results from SHARE, ELSA and HRS. Eur J Pub Health. 2011;21(1):81–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rozzini R, Sleiman I, Maggi S, Noale M, Trabucchi M. Gender differences and health status in old and very old patients. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2009;10(8):554–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the study nurses Gerd Martinson, Gun Karlsson, and Anna-Carin Säll Grahnat for their excellent work during the data collection.

Funding

The OCTO 2 study was supported by Futurum, Jönköping County Council (FUTURUM-13282); and Eva och Oscar Ahrén’s foundation. Ann-Sofi Kammerlind was supported by Futurum, Jönköping County Council when working on the present study. Open access funding provided by Jönköping University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

EF and MEB are project leaders for the OCTO2 study that generated data for this article. SF performed the statistical analysis and drafted the manuscript. SF, EF, ASK translated the LSA into Swedish. All authors took part in the design of the study, chose the included variables, as well as read and critically reviewed the drafted manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sofi Fristedt.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Participation in the present study was voluntary and data collection took part upon informed written consent. The study was approved by the regional ethical committee in Linköping, Sweden (#225–08).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fristedt, S., Kammerlind, AS., Fransson, E.I. et al. Physical functioning associated with life-space mobility in later life among men and women. BMC Geriatr 22, 364 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-022-03065-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-022-03065-9

Keywords

  • Community mobility
  • Dizziness
  • Hearing
  • Lung function
  • Vision
  • Older people