Work

Does a Real-Life Cognitively Enriched Walking Program “Take a Walk With Your Brain” Benefit Cognitive Functioning and Physical Activity in Community-Dwelling Older Adults? A Randomized Controlled Trial

Year: 2025

Type: article

Study designs: Randomized Controlled Trial, Clinical Trial

Abstract: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Most studies examining combined cognitive and physical activity are conducted in laboratory settings. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) examines the effects of a real-life cognitively enriched walking program on cognitive functioning and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in adults aged ≥65 years. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A three-arm RCT was conducted, comparing the cognitively enriched walking program (WALK+, doing cognitive tasks while walking) with a walking program without enrichment (WALK-only) and a passive control condition (CONT). Both WALK+ and WALK-only had a duration of 6 months, with 2 outdoors, supervised group-based sessions per week (60-90 min/session). Cognitive functioning (short- and long-term memory, executive functioning, and processing speed) and MVPA were measured at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) and ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometers, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 148 community-dwelling adults (median age: 69 years, range: 65-85; 72% [n = 107] female) were included. Comparing WALK+ to WALK-only and CONT, and WALK-only to CONT, there were no significant intervention effects on cognitive functioning at 3, 6, or 12 months. MVPA decreased with 13 min/day in WALK+ between baseline and 12 months, while it increased between baseline and 6 months with 12 min/day in WALK-only and between 3 and 6 months with 16 min/day in CONT. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The WALK+ program did not lead to statistically significant benefits for cognitive functioning or MVPA compared to WALK-only or CONT. Future studies should explore for whom combined interventions may work and determine the optimal dosage.

Source: The Gerontologist

DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnaf043