ArticleBMC public health2026
Older adults' active mobility choices and their specific preferences and needs for their living environment: an intersectional approach.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor older adults, an effective and accessible way to incorporate exercise into daily life is through active mobility, which includes walking and cycling to everyday destinations. Research highlights the critical role of structural and spatial neighborhood design in promoting active mobility. Nevertheless, most studies on active mobility treat older adults as a homogeneous group, overlooking important differences within this population. An intersectional approach allows researchers to address the specific needs of subgroups that might otherwise go unnoticed. Therefore, this study aims to use an intersectional lens to explore the heterogeneity of active mobility patterns and preferences among older adults in relation to the built environment.
methodsThe cross-sectional study included 2148 older adults (47.0% women) living in eleven rural districts and two urban municipalities (< 100,000 inhabitants) in the Metropolitan Region Northwest in Germany. Data were collected using a self-administered postal questionnaire, pretested with older adults. Subgroups based on primary mobility mode were identified using conditional inference trees (CIT). We then examined subgroup-specific preferences regarding built environment features influencing mobility choice. Three different sensitivity analyses were performed with complete-case data and two alternative ways to operationalize mobility mode.
resultsWe identified eight different subgroups with the most important splitting variables being mobility restrictions, land use mix, and self-reported health status. Across all subgroups, the highest proportion of participants rated the quality of surfaces (59.8% - 84.4%), good lighting (57.3% - 86.4%), and safety concerning traffic (69.7% - 87.3%), and crime (71.4%-90.4%) as important. In general, the subgroup of women with mobility restrictions living in areas with a low land use mix showed the highest proportions of importance ratings.
conclusionOur findings highlight the diverse mobility patterns of older adults and their varying environmental preferences and needs. To promote active mobility, urban planning must recognize this heterogeneity and implement tailored, demand-oriented solutions. We demonstrate that a quantitative intersectional approach is a valuable addition to qualitative research for analyzing the combined effects of social identities and living conditions. Future studies should increasingly adopt an intersectional perspective to identify unique experiences of disadvantage and privilege.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.