Lost Mobility: The Prison You Don't See Coming

Tests can predict important things like fall risk and mortality, but don’t take into account engagement with the world, social connections, spontaneity, and joy.

With every article and podcast episode, we provide comprehensive study materials: References, Executive Summary, Briefing Document, Quiz, Essay Questions, Glossary, Timeline, Cast, FAQ, Table of Contents, Index, 3k Image, and Fact Check.

Please support my work by becoming a free subscriber. (Your subscription helps me continue providing evidence-based analysis in a media landscape increasingly hostile to inconvenient truths.)

We live in a world obsessed with metrics. Steps counted, calories burned, heart rates monitored. Your Apple Watch buzzes when you've been sitting too long, your Fitbit celebrates when you hit 10,000 steps, and your phone tracks how many flights of stairs you've climbed. We've gamified movement, turned our bodies into data points, and convinced ourselves that more numbers equal better health.

But here's what they don't tell you: we're measuring all the wrong things.

I learned this the hard way, not through academic research or clinical studies, but through watching my own mother navigate the slow erosion of mobility that comes with aging. One day she was gardening, driving to book club, meeting friends for lunch. The next, she was calculating whether a trip to the grocery store was worth the energy it would cost her for the rest of the day.

Her Fitbit still counted steps. Her phone still tracked her movement. But the numbers told lies about the reality of her shrinking world.

The Difference Between What You Can Do and What You Actually Do

Recent research in health informatics has identified something profound that most of us miss: there's a crucial difference between mobility capacity - what you're physically able to do - and mobility performance - what you actually do in real life.

Think about two people: Mark, who bikes the same route to work every day and hits the same gym with military precision, and Eleanor, who works from home but takes spontaneous walks to cafes, swims at different pools, and explores new neighborhoods on weekend bike rides. In a clinical test, they might perform identically - same walking speed, same strength, same cardiovascular fitness. But their lived experiences of mobility, and consequently their quality of life, are worlds apart.

This distinction matters because traditional healthcare focuses almost exclusively on capacity. Can you walk 10 meters in 6 seconds? Can you stand up from a chair without using your hands? These tests predict important things like fall risk and mortality, but they miss the texture of actual living.

Eleanor's varied, spontaneous movement patterns contribute to what researchers call "life-space mobility" - literally how far you venture from your home base. It's not just about physical capability; it's about engagement with the world, social connections, spontaneity, and joy. These are the things that make life feel worth living, yet they're nearly impossible to capture in a sterile clinical setting.

The Prison You Don't See Coming

Here's what's terrifying: mobility loss doesn't announce itself with dramatic falls or sudden paralysis. It creeps in quietly, reshaping your world one small compromise at a time.

First, you skip the stairs and take the elevator. Then you choose restaurants based on parking availability rather than food quality. You stop accepting social invitations that require walking more than a block. You order groceries online instead of wandering the aisles. Each decision feels reasonable, even smart. You're being "practical."

But what you're actually doing is systematically shrinking your life space, trading richness for safety, exploration for predictability. Before you know it, you're living in an invisible prison with walls made of your own limitations and fears.

The data backs up this lived reality in stark terms. Using health economic models, researchers have found that people would trade nearly six years of life to avoid mobility problems. Six years. That's more than they'd trade to avoid extreme self-care problems, more than they'd sacrifice to eliminate issues with usual activities, and comparable only to extreme pain.

Think about that. We value our ability to move through the world so highly that we'd rather die six years earlier than live without it.

Technology's False Promise

The tech industry wants to solve this with more sensors, better algorithms, and sleeker interfaces. Soon, they promise, we'll have tiny devices that can detect tremors, monitor posture, analyze gait patterns, and predict falls before they happen. Your smartphone will track not just how many steps you take, but the quality of those steps. Wearables will monitor your heart rate variability during movement, detecting stress and fear alongside physical exertion.

This sounds revolutionary, but it's missing the point.

All of this technology focuses on what researchers call "the quality of life of the body" - objective, measurable, quantifiable aspects of physical function. But there's another dimension they're largely ignoring: "the quality of life of the person" - the subjective, messy, deeply human experience of what it feels like to live in your body and move through your world.

Your smartwatch can tell you that you walked 8,000 steps yesterday, but it can't tell you that 7,500 of those steps were pacing anxiously in your apartment because you were too afraid to go outside. It can track your heart rate spike, but it doesn't know whether that's from climbing stairs or from the anxiety of approaching a crosswalk where the light changes too quickly.

The Metrics That Actually Matter

So what should we be measuring instead? What would truly helpful mobility monitoring look like?

It would track spontaneity - how often you deviate from predictable routes and routines. It would measure social mobility - how often your movement connects you with other people rather than isolating you. It would monitor choice - whether your movement patterns reflect your desires or just your limitations.

Most importantly, it would recognize that mobility isn't just about the mechanical function of walking. It's about agency, autonomy, and the fundamental human need to explore and engage with the world on your own terms.

Real mobility monitoring would ask questions like: Are you still discovering new places? Do your movement patterns reflect curiosity or just habit? When you choose not to go somewhere, is it because you don't want to, or because you're afraid you can't handle it?

The Upstream Problem

Here's what really keeps me up at night: we're so focused on monitoring and measuring mobility that we're ignoring the upstream factors that determine it in the first place.

Your neighborhood design matters more than your step count. The availability of public transportation matters more than your walking speed. Social connections matter more than your cardiovascular fitness. Economic security matters more than your balance tests.

A person living in a walkable neighborhood with good public transit, strong social networks, and economic stability will maintain mobility far longer than someone with perfect physical capacity but none of those supporting structures. Yet our entire healthcare system is organized around fixing bodies rather than creating environments where bodies can thrive.

What We Actually Need

Instead of more sophisticated ways to count steps, we need to redesign our world to support human movement across the entire lifespan. This means cities built for walking, not just driving. It means public spaces that invite lingering and exploration. It means transportation systems that don't require perfect balance and quick reflexes to navigate safely.

We need healthcare that asks not just "How fast can you walk?" but "Where do you want to go, and what's stopping you from getting there?" We need technology that enhances human agency rather than just monitoring human decline.

Most of all, we need to recognize that mobility isn't a medical problem to be solved with better sensors and algorithms. It's a fundamental aspect of human dignity that requires us to think beyond individual bodies to the social, economic, and environmental systems that either support or constrain our movement through the world.

Your smartwatch will never tell you this. But your life depends on understanding it.

The question isn't whether we can measure mobility better. It's whether we can create a world where everyone has the chance to move through it with curiosity, joy, and choice - regardless of what their step counter says.

References:

Quantifying Mobility in Quality of Life

---

Find us:

BuzzSprout

YouTube
Substack
Podcast Providers
Spotify
Apple Podcasts
Patreon
FaceBook Group

BlueSky

STUDY MATERIALS

1. Briefing Document

Executive Summary:

This chapter explores the complex relationship between mobility and quality of life (QoL), highlighting the challenges in operationalizing and measuring QoL across various studies. A key distinction is made between the "QoL of the person" (self-expressed life satisfaction) and the "QoL of the body" (objective measures of function and impairment). The authors argue that while traditional QoL measures are often subjective and periodic, the QoL of the body, particularly mobility, can be objectively monitored in real-time using emerging wearable technologies. The document emphasizes the significant importance of mobility to QoL, both in the general population and especially for individuals with health conditions. Qualitative and quantitative evidence supports mobility as a crucial domain, impacting independence, social interaction, and overall well-being. The future of monitoring the body's QoL is envisioned through personalized technologies that can track various mobility parameters and provide feedback, potentially empowering individuals to improve their QoL.

Main Themes and Key Ideas/Facts:

1. Complexity of Quality of Life (QoL) Operationalization:

• QoL is a multifaceted concept, with its operationalization varying greatly across studies, encompassing measures of physical and mental health, general health perception, life satisfaction, participation, illness intrusiveness, health-related QoL (HRQL), and global QoL.

• These outcomes can be single items, uni-dimensional constructs, or profile measures, making interpretation difficult.

1. Distinction Between QoL of the Person and QoL of the Body:

• A crucial distinction is made between:

• QoL of the Person: Best reflected through global QoL measures, including life satisfaction. This is inherently self-expressed.

• QoL of the Body: Reflected in outcomes related to aspects of function, including physical, emotional, or psychological impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions. This can be monitored in real-time.

• "While the person’s QOL is best self-expressed, the body’s QOL could be monitored in real-time with the assistance of a growing portfolio of personal, wearable technologies."

1. Defining Mobility:

• Merriam-Webster: "ability or capacity to move".

• Scientific community: "the ability to move oneself (either independently or by using assistive devices or transportation) within environments that expand from one’s home to the neighborhood and to regions beyond."

• WHO's International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF) defines mobility based on components such as changing and maintaining body position, carrying/moving/handling objects, walking and moving, and moving around using transportation.

• Mobility is a necessary, but not sufficient, capacity for many other activities essential to QoL (e.g., basic activities of daily living, work, recreation).

1. Capacity vs. Performance in Mobility:

• ICF includes two qualifying constructs:

• Capacity: What the person can do, often in a test situation (standard environment, clinical testing).

• Performance: What the person actually does in their real-world environment.

• "While capacity ICF indicators are necessary in the context of a person with a health conditions, they are not suf?cient for tracking mobility in healthy populations where performance in the real world is the relevant QOL indicator."

• Real-world mobility parameters include action range (distance from home), distance covered per unit time, duration, pace, and frequency of mobility events. Qualitative aspects like time-of-day, accompaniment, and location are also important.

1. Mobility's Importance to QoL:

• Mobility is a significant contributor to QoL for both healthy individuals and those with health conditions.

• In the general population, mobility (particularly walking) is considered highly important for HRQL. The EQ-5D measure shows that having no mobility (unable to walk) has a significant negative impact on health status, equivalent to being willing to trade off nearly 6 years of life.

• Slow walking speed is associated with a higher risk of death in older people.

• Mobility is frequently included as a domain in recognized QoL or HRQL measures (e.g., HUI, SF-36, WHOQOL-BREF).

• For people with health conditions, mobility limitations have a profound impact on QoL. Most health conditions affect mobility, and mobility is often taken for granted until limitations arise.

• Qualitative studies highlight mobility's importance post-hip fracture (affecting choices, social interactions, independence, self-image) and for people with leg ulcers.

• Studies in people with cancer, stroke, Multiple Sclerosis, and HIV also identify mobility as a key area of importance to QoL.

1. Modeling the Relationship Between Mobility and QoL:

• The relationship between mobility limitations and QoL is complex, involving impairments of body structure/function, limitations in activities, and restrictions in participation.

• Theoretical models like the Wilson-Cleary model integrate biological/physiological measures, symptoms, function, health perception, and QoL, showing how mobility fits within this framework.

• Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is a suitable method for assessing the impact of mobility in a multi-factorial framework, considering personal and environmental factors, symptoms, and other activities.

• However, a limitation of many studies using SEM is the lack of a universally accepted QoL measure as the outcome; instead, they often use composite measures that include constructs under investigation.

1. Quantifying Mobility Using Technology:

• Emerging technologies offer a novel way to measure the body's QoL, particularly mobility, by quantifying relevant domains.

• Quality of Life Technologies (QoLT): Technologies used for assessing or improving individual QoL. Wearable devices are key.

• Parameters that can be monitored via technology include:

• Life-space mobility: How far from home a person moves (GPS, Cell-IDs). Associated with social support, driving capacity, and gait speed.

• Amount of vigorous activities: Monitored using heart rate and accelerations.

• Time spent in activity: Easily monitored with simple wearable devices tracking accelerations (e.g., sedentary time).

• Speed of movement: Step cadence and duration of activity bouts. Meeting physical activity guidelines often relates to cadence.

• Higher levels of physical activity: Climbing stairs can be tracked.

• Gait speed: While a clinical "sixth vital sign," it's less easily tracked in the real world than cadence, requiring distance measurement. However, it's important for safety benchmarks.

• Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG) components: Number of sitting-to-standing transitions can be captured by accelerometers.

• Motor impairments: Slowness of movement, tremor, poor posture, balance, gait quality can be monitored with various devices (smartphone apps, inertial devices on the body).

• Measurements of these mobility parameters can indicate underlying physical and psychological states such as pain, fatigue, low mood, apathy, or anxiety.

1. The Future of Monitoring QoL of the Body:

• Technology is expected to play a significant role in monitoring and improving QoL, starting with the QoL of the body.

• The future is envisioned with individuals wearing accurate, well-designed smartwatches monitoring activity, heart rate, oxygen saturation, tremor, etc.

• For those with specific challenges, unobtrusive devices on the body could monitor posture, stability, and gait quality.

• These devices will be continuously connected to smartphones, providing users with updates on their performance and reactions to stimuli, empowering them to respond to threats and adopt positive mobility habits.

• "We are at the cusp of changing the way we think about monitoring and remediating and technology is poised to empower people to take charge of their own QoL, including, or starting from, their body’s QoL."

Notable Quotes:

• "This complexity led to a revelation that one could think of QOL of the person differently from the QoL of the body."

• "While the person’s QOL is best self-expressed, the body’s QOL could be monitored in real-time with the assistance of a growing portfolio of personal, wearable technologies."

• "mobility is a necessary (but not suf?cient) capacity required for many other activities such as basic activities of daily living, more complex activities required for maintain self and living space, work, and recreation and leisure including sports."

• "While capacity ICF indicators are necessary in the context of a person with a health conditions, they are not suf?cient for tracking mobility in healthy populations where performance in the real world is the relevant QOL indicator."

• "QoL is not the same as health as health is only one of many QoL components."

• "Quality of Life Technologies (QoLT) refers any technologies that can be used for assessment or improvement of the individual’s QoL."

• "For mostly healthy members of the general population, mobility, particularly walking, is the most important of ?ve key HRQL items."

• "Mobility is more important to QoL once it is limited. People tend to take mobility for granted until the limitations set in, but when asked how they would imaging their life without mobility, they imagine it poorer than with other health challenges."

• "Based on the literature... and the clinical and research experience of the authors, an estimated 1/3 of QoL of the person would be explained by mobility..."

• "We are at the cusp of changing the way we think about monitoring and remediating and technology is poised to empower people to take charge of their own QoL, including, or starting from, their body’s QoL."

Limitations/Caveats:

• The operationalization of QoL varies across studies, making direct comparisons difficult.

• Traditional QoL measures often rely on periodic self-report, limiting the ability to capture the richness and variation of real-world mobility patterns.

• Many studies examining the relationship between mobility and QoL do not use universally accepted QoL measures as outcomes, sometimes using composite measures that include the constructs under investigation.

• While technology offers potential for real-time monitoring of the body's QoL, challenges in accurately interpreting the data and ensuring user adoption remain.

Implications:

• The distinction between QoL of the person and QoL of the body highlights the value of objective, real-time monitoring of physical function, particularly mobility.

• Wearable and personalized technologies have the potential to revolutionize how we measure and understand the impact of mobility on daily life and overall well-being.

• Further research is needed to refine the metrics and technologies used for mobility monitoring and to understand how this data can be effectively used to improve individual QoL outcomes.

• Considering mobility as a key factor in both clinical assessment and technological monitoring is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of QoL, especially for individuals with health conditions.

Next Steps/Recommendations:

• Explore potential collaborations or research initiatives focused on developing and validating technologies for monitoring the "QoL of the body," particularly mobility.

• Investigate the ethical considerations and privacy implications of real-time monitoring of mobility data.

• Support research that utilizes objective mobility data to understand its relationship with subjective measures of QoL of the person.

• Consider how insights from mobility monitoring can be translated into personalized interventions to improve physical function and, consequently, QoL.

2. Quiz & Answer Key

Quiz

1. How does the article define mobility in the scientific community?

2. What are the four components of mobility according to the World Health Organization's International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF)?

3. Explain the distinction the article makes between "capacity" and "performance" in the context of mobility measurements using the ICF framework.

4. Beyond distance, what other parameters related to mobility are discussed in the article that can be quantified?

5. According to the article, what is the primary difference between Quality of Life (QoL) and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL)?

6. What are three distinct approaches mentioned in the article for measuring Quality of Life?

7. Based on the EQ-5D measure, how important is mobility (specifically walking) compared to other health issues for the general population?

8. What does the integration of the Wilson-Cleary Model and the ICF model illustrate about the relationship between mobility and QoL?

9. List three examples of mobility parameters that can be monitored using personal, wearable technologies according to the article.

10. What future development does the article envision regarding the monitoring and improvement of the "QoL of the body"?

Answer Key

1. In the scientific community, mobility is defined as "the ability to move oneself (either independently or by using assistive devices or transportation) within environments that expand from one’s home to the neighborhood and to regions beyond."

2. According to the ICF, the components of mobility are: changing and maintaining body position (d410-d429), carrying, moving and handling objects (d430-d449), walking and moving (d450-d469), and moving around using transportation (d470-d489).

3. In the ICF context, "capacity" refers to a person's ability to execute a task in a standard environment (often a clinical test situation), while "performance" refers to what the person actually does in their real-world environment.

4. Other quantifiable mobility parameters discussed include duration (how long someone is mobile), pace (steps per minute), and frequency of mobility events (bouts of activity).

5. QoL is a broader concept than HRQL, encompassing various aspects of life beyond just health, such as material comforts, relationships, learning, and leisure. HRQL specifically focuses on the impact of health status on QoL.

6. Three approaches to measuring QoL are using QoL profiles (multi-item domains), health indices (single scores derived from multiple dimensions), and single-item ratings on ordinal or visual analogue scales.

7. Based on the EQ-5D, not having mobility (being unable to walk) has the most significant detraction from perfect health compared to extreme problems in self-care, usual activities, pain, and mood for the general population.

8. The integrated model shows the theoretical links between biological/physiological measures (like mobility impairments), symptoms, function, health perception, and ultimately QoL, illustrating how factors related to the person and their environment influence these links.

9. Examples of mobility parameters monitored by technology include life-space mobility (via GPS/Cell-IDs), amount of vigorous activity (via heart rate/accelerations), time spent in activity, step cadence, number of sitting to standing transitions, slowness of movement, and gait quality.

10. The article envisions a future where individuals use accurate wearable technologies (smartwatches, sticky devices) to continuously monitor various aspects of their body's QoL, receive feedback on their performance, and learn to respond to signs of threat, ultimately influencing their QoL in the long term.

3. Essay Questions

1. Discuss the challenges in interpreting findings related to mobility and Quality of Life when studies utilize varying operationalizations and measures of QoL. Use examples from the text to support your answer.

2. Analyze the significance of distinguishing between "QoL of the person" and "QoL of the body" as proposed in the article. How does this distinction inform the use of technology in monitoring and improving Quality of Life?

3. Evaluate the evidence presented in the article regarding the importance of mobility for Quality of Life across different populations (general population, people with health conditions) and through various types of studies (quantitative, qualitative).

4. Explain how the integration of the Wilson-Cleary Model and the ICF provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the complex relationship between mobility and Quality of Life, considering both individual and environmental factors.

5. Explore the potential of wearable technologies to revolutionize the monitoring and enhancement of mobility and, consequently, the Quality of Life of the body. Discuss specific examples of technologies and the mobility parameters they can track.

4. Glossary of Key Terms

• Mobility: The ability or capacity to move oneself within environments, ranging from the home to broader regions.

• Quality of Life (QoL): Individuals' perception of their position in life in the context of their culture, goals, expectations, standards, and concerns, encompassing various components beyond health.

• Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL): The impact of health status on an individual's quality of life.

• International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF): A framework developed by the WHO to classify and describe functioning and disability, including components of body functions, body structures, activities, and participation.

• Capacity (ICF): A person's ability to execute a task in a standard environment, typically referring to clinical testing.

• Performance (ICF): What a person actually does in their real-world environment.

• Life-space mobility: How far from home a person moves, a global measure of mobility.

• Gait speed: The speed at which a person walks, considered the sixth vital sign.

• Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG) test: A clinical test of functional mobility requiring standing up, walking 3 meters, turning, and sitting down.

• Quality of Life Technologies (QoLT): Any technologies used for the assessment or improvement of an individual's quality of life.

• Wilson-Cleary Model: A conceptual model linking clinical variables (like biological/physiological measures) to health-related quality of life outcomes, considering intermediate factors like symptoms, function, and health perception.

• Structural Equation Modeling (SEM): A statistical method used to assess the impact of various variables, including mobility, in a multi-factorial framework when examining outcomes like Quality of Life.

5. Timeline of Main Events

• 1947: Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, defining quality of life as the "best kind of life, the happiest life," is published (referenced in [10]).

• 1978: Flanagan's "A research approach to improving our quality of life," which outlines components of QoL, is published [9].

• 1991: Podsiadlo and Richardson publish on the Timed "Up & Go" test as a measure of functional mobility in frail elderly persons [63].

• 1992: Ware and Sherbourne publish on the conceptual framework and item selection for the MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) [22].

• 1995:The WHOQOL Group publishes the position paper for the World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL) [11].

• Wilson and Cleary publish "Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes," introducing the Wilson-Cleary model [32].

• Feeny, Torrance, and Furlong publish on the Health Utilities Index [15, 20].

• 1996: Ware, Kosinski, and Keller publish on the construction, reliability, and validity of the 12-item short-form health survey (SF-12) [21].

• 1998: The WHOQOL group publishes on the development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment [12].

• 2001: The World Health Organization (WHO) publishes the second edition of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) [2].

• 2002:Crapo et al. publish ATS statement guidelines for the six-minute walk test [6].

• Mayo et al. publish on activity, participation, and quality of life six months post-stroke [3].

• 2003: Insinga and Fryback publish on understanding differences between self-ratings and population ratings for health in the EuroQOL [26].

• 2004: McPherson et al. publish on how self-valuation and societal valuations of health state differ with disease severity [25].

• 2005:Brazier et al. publish on whether patients should have a greater role in valuing health states [27].

• Collins et al. publish on the assessment of chronic health conditions on work performance, absence, and total economic impact for employers [53].

• 2006: Lampinen et al. publish on activity as a predictor of mental well-being among older adults [37].

• 2007: Tannenbaum, Ahmed, and Mayo publish on what drives older women's perceptions of health-related quality of life [41].

• 2008: Wac publishes "From quantified self to quality of life" [18].

• 2009: Fritz and Lusardi publish the white paper "Walking Speed: The Sixth Vital Sign" [60].

• 2010: Webber, Porter, and Menec publish "Mobility in older adults: a comprehensive framework" [1].

• 2011:Sim, Bartlam, and Bernard evaluate the CASP-19 as a measure of quality of life in old age [13].

• Mayo et al. assess the extent to which common HRQL indices capture constructs beyond symptoms and function [16].

• Michie et al. introduce the behaviour change wheel [73].

• Tudor-Locke et al. analyze patterns of adult stepping cadence in the 2005-2006 NHANES [59].

• 2012: Hornyak, Van Swearingen, and Brach discuss the measurement of gait speed [61].

• 2013:Alonso et al. publish on how disability mediates the impact of common conditions on perceived health [36].

• Bentley et al. conduct a longitudinal mediation analysis of functional status, life-space mobility, and quality of life [38].

• Diehr et al. study the five-year change in 13 key measures of standardized health in older adults [54].

• Soh et al. present a path analysis of determinants of health-related quality of life in people with Parkinson's disease [49].

• 2014:Loechte et al. conduct a literature review on mobility parameters in health applications [5].

• Richardson, Iezzi, Khan, and Maxwell publish on the validity and reliability of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL)-8D [23].

• Collett et al. provide insights into gait disorders using phase plot analysis in Huntington's disease [64].

• 2015:Phillips et al. publish a population-based study defining normative data for the life-space mobility assessment-composite score [55].

• Huang et al. analyze mediating effects on health-related quality of life in adults with osteoporosis using structural equation modeling [39].

• Lee et al. present a structural model of health-related quality of life in Parkinson's disease patients [40].

• Bielderman et al. conduct a path analysis of the relationship between socioeconomic status and quality of life in older adults [50].

• Mayo et al. model health-related quality of life in people recovering from stroke [48].

• Fanourakis and Wac present ReNLocAn, an anchor-free localization algorithm [57].

• Benatti and Ried-Larsen review experimental studies on the effects of breaking up prolonged sitting time [58].

• 2016:Shahrbanian, Duquette, Ahmed, and Mayo study how pain acts through fatigue to affect participation in individuals with multiple sclerosis [35].

• Liu et al. conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on usual walking speed and all-cause mortality risk in older people [19].

• Holloway and Dawes discuss disrupting the world of disability with next-generation technologies [74].

• 2017:Li and Loo conduct a structural equation modeling analysis of mobility impairment, social engagement, and life satisfaction among older Chinese [34].

• Aburub and Mayo review individualized measures in cancer and their application to quality of life [30].

• Mayo et al. compare individualized and standardized approaches to assessing quality of life across four health conditions [31].

• 2018:Ehlers, Nielsen, and Bjerrum conduct an integrative review of experiences of older adults after hip fracture [28].

• Phillips et al. conduct a systematic review of qualitative research into people's experiences of living with venous leg ulcers [29].

• Vadnerkar et al. design and validate a biofeedback device to improve heel-to-toe gait in seniors [65].

• Nanni et al. discuss demoralization and embitterment [52].

• Esser et al. conduct a proof-of-principle study on single sensor gait analysis to detect diabetic peripheral neuropathy [70].

• 2019:Mate et al. compare performance-based tests and self-reports of physical function in people with multiple sclerosis [4].

• Huang et al. study the relationship between activity, pain, self-efficacy, and quality of life among older people with knee osteoarthritis [47].

• Mayo et al. study relationships between cognition, function, and quality of life among HIV+ Canadian men [51].

• Mate, Abou-Sharkh, Morais, and Mayo demonstrate real-time auditory feedback-induced adaptation to walking among seniors [66].

• Mate, Abou-Sharkh, Morais, and Mayo analyze relationships between indicators of step quality and cadence in gait-vulnerable populations [67].

• 2020:Kuspinar et al. identify modifiable factors related to life-space mobility in community-dwelling older adults [56].

• Mansoubi et al. show how cognitive performance and movement reflect psychological symptoms in adolescents [69].

• Harvey, Peper, Mason, and Joy study the effect of posture feedback training on health [71].

• Serrano-Checa et al. find that sleep quality, anxiety, and depression are associated with fall risk factors in older women [72].

• Mate and Mayo find that clinically assessed walking capacity does not always reflect real-world performance in people with multiple sclerosis [62].

• Carvalho et al. present a new approach toward gait training in patients with Parkinson's disease [68].

• 2022: Mayo and Mate publish "Quantifying Mobility in Quality of Life" as a chapter in the book Quantifying Quality of Life, edited by Wac and Wulfovich.

Cast of Characters

• Aristotle: Ancient Greek philosopher who defined quality of life as the "best kind of life, the happiest life." (Referenced in [10]).

• John C. Flanagan: Developed a research approach to improving quality of life and identified components of QoL [9].

• Douglas Podsiadlo: Co-developed the Timed "Up & Go" test [63].

• Suzanne Richardson: Co-developed the Timed "Up & Go" test [63].

• John E. Ware Jr.: Co-developed the SF-36 and SF-12 health surveys [21, 22].

• Cathy Sherbourne: Co-developed the SF-36 health survey [22].

• Mark Kosinski: Co-developed the SF-12 health survey [21].

• Sheldon D. Keller: Co-developed the SF-12 health survey [21].

• Ian B. Wilson: Co-developed the Wilson-Cleary model linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life [32].

• Paul D. Cleary: Co-developed the Wilson-Cleary model linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life [32].

• David Feeny: Co-developed the Health Utilities Index [15, 20].

• George Torrance: Co-developed the Health Utilities Index [15, 20].

• William Furlong: Co-developed the Health Utilities Index [15, 20].

• Robert O. Crapo: Part of the group that published ATS statement guidelines for the six-minute walk test [6].

• Richard Casaburi: Part of the group that published ATS statement guidelines for the six-minute walk test [6].

• Alain L. Coates: Part of the group that published ATS statement guidelines for the six-minute walk test [6].

• Paul L. Enright: Part of the group that published ATS statement guidelines for the six-minute walk test [6].

• Neil R. MacIntyre: Part of the group that published ATS statement guidelines for the six-minute walk test [6].

• Robert T. Mckay: Part of the group that published ATS statement guidelines for the six-minute walk test [6].

• Nancy E. Mayo: A prominent researcher in quality of life and rehabilitation, co-authored the chapter "Quantifying Mobility in Quality of Life" and numerous referenced studies [3, 4, 8, 16, 30, 31, 35, 41, 48, 51, 62, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70].

• Kedar K. V. Mate: Co-authored the chapter "Quantifying Mobility in Quality of Life" and several referenced studies related to mobility and technology [4, 66, 67, 68].

• Kenneth Wac: Proposed a new way of measuring quality of life using technology (Quality of Life Technologies) and co-edited the book Quantifying Quality of Life [17, 18].

• Sharon Wulfovich: Co-edited the book Quantifying Quality of Life [34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74].

• Sarah C. Webber: Co-authored a comprehensive framework for mobility in older adults [1].

• Miriam P. Porter: Co-authored a comprehensive framework for mobility in older adults [1].

• Verena H. Menec: Co-authored a comprehensive framework for mobility in older adults [1].

• N. Loechte: Co-authored a literature review on mobility parameters in health applications [5].

• B. T. Von: Co-authored a literature review on mobility parameters in health applications [5].

• R. Haux: Co-authored a literature review on mobility parameters in health applications [5].

• Cindy Tudor-Locke: Researched patterns of adult stepping cadence and their relation to physical activity guidelines [59].

• Stephen Fritz: Co-authored the white paper "Walking Speed: The Sixth Vital Sign" [60].

• Marybeth Lusardi: Co-authored the white paper "Walking Speed: The Sixth Vital Sign" [60].

• Vita Hornyak: Co-authored a discussion on the measurement of gait speed [61].

• Janet M. Van Swearingen: Co-authored a discussion on the measurement of gait speed [61].

• Jessie M. Brach: Co-authored a discussion on the measurement of gait speed [61].

• James C. Collins: Researched the impact of chronic health conditions on work performance and economic impact [53].

• M. D. Baase: Researched the impact of chronic health conditions on work performance and economic impact [53].

• C. E. Sharda: Researched the impact of chronic health conditions on work performance and economic impact [53].

• R. J. Ozminkowski: Researched the impact of chronic health conditions on work performance and economic impact [53].

• S. Nicholson: Researched the impact of chronic health conditions on work performance and economic impact [53].

• G. M. Billotti: Researched the impact of chronic health conditions on work performance and economic impact [53].

• J. Diehr: Researched decline in health for older adults [54].

• S. M. Thielke: Researched decline in health for older adults [54].

• A. B. Newman: Researched decline in health for older adults [54].

• C. Hirsch: Researched decline in health for older adults [54].

• R. M. Allman: Researched decline in health for older adults [54].

• P. Sawyer: Researched decline in health for older adults [54].

• D. L. Roth: Researched decline in health for older adults [54].

• Jeremy Phillips: Co-authored a study defining normative population data for life-space mobility [55].

• Gianni Dal: Co-authored a study defining normative population data for life-space mobility [55].

• Claire Ritchie: Co-authored a study defining normative population data for life-space mobility [55].

• Merryl P. Abernethy: Co-authored a study defining normative population data for life-space mobility [55].

• David C. Currow: Co-authored a study defining normative population data for life-space mobility [55].

• A. Kuspinar: Co-authored studies on mobility in people with multiple sclerosis and life-space mobility in older adults [4, 56].

• C. P. Verschoor: Co-authored a study on life-space mobility in older adults [56].

• M. K. Beauchamp: Co-authored a study on life-space mobility in older adults [56].

• J. Dushoff: Co-authored a study on life-space mobility in older adults [56].

• J. Ma: Co-authored a study on life-space mobility in older adults [56].

• E. Amster: Co-authored a study on life-space mobility in older adults [56].

• M. Fanourakis: Co-developed an anchor-free localization algorithm [57].

• F. B. Benatti: Researched the effects of breaking up prolonged sitting time [58].

• M. Ried-Larsen: Researched the effects of breaking up prolonged sitting time [58].

• S. M. Camhi: Co-authored a study on patterns of adult stepping cadence [59].

• C. Leonardi: Co-authored a study on patterns of adult stepping cadence [59].

• W. D. Johnson: Co-authored a study on patterns of adult stepping cadence [59].

• P. T. Katzmarzyk: Co-authored a study on patterns of adult stepping cadence [59].

• C. P. Earnest: Co-authored a study on patterns of adult stepping cadence [59].

• A. Vadnerkar: Co-designed and validated a biofeedback device for gait [65].

• S. Figueiredo: Co-designed and validated a biofeedback device for gait [65].

• R. E. Kearney: Co-designed and validated a biofeedback device for gait [65].

• A. Abou-Sharkh: Co-authored studies on auditory feedback for gait and step quality [66, 67, 68].

• J. A. Morais: Co-authored studies on auditory feedback for gait and step quality [66, 67].

• E. Cinar: Co-authored a study on gait training in Parkinson's disease [68].

• A. Lafontaine: Co-authored a study on gait training in Parkinson's disease [68].

• L. P. Carvalho: Co-authored a study on gait training in Parkinson's disease [68].

• M. Mansoubi: Researched how movement reflects psychological symptoms in adolescents [69].

• B. D. Weedon: Researched how movement reflects psychological symptoms in adolescents [69].

• P. Esser: Researched movement and gait in various conditions [64, 69, 70].

• M. Fazel: Researched how movement reflects psychological symptoms in adolescents [69].

• W. Wade: Researched how movement reflects psychological symptoms in adolescents [69].

• J. Sports: Co-authored a study on how movement reflects psychological symptoms in adolescents [69].

• M. Stedicine: Co-authored a study on how movement reflects psychological symptoms in adolescents [69].

• K. Maynard: Co-authored a study on single sensor gait analysis [70].

• D. Steins: Co-authored a study on single sensor gait analysis [70].

• A. Hillier: Co-authored a study on single sensor gait analysis [70].

• J. Buckingham: Co-authored a study on single sensor gait analysis [70].

• R. H. Harvey: Researched the effect of posture feedback training [71].

• E. Peper: Researched the effect of posture feedback training [71].

• L. Mason: Researched the effect of posture feedback training [71].

• M. Joy: Researched the effect of posture feedback training [71].

• R. Serrano-Checa: Researched factors associated with fall risk in older women [72].

• F. Hita-Contreras: Researched factors associated with fall risk in older women [72].

• J. D. Jimenez-Garcia: Researched factors associated with fall risk in older women [72].

• A. Achalandabaso-Ochoa: Researched factors associated with fall risk in older women [72].

• A. Aibar-Almazan: Researched factors associated with fall risk in older women [72].

• A. Martinez-Amat: Researched factors associated with fall risk in older women [72].

• S. Michie: Introduced the behaviour change wheel [73].

• M. M. van Stralen: Introduced the behaviour change wheel [73].

• R. West: Introduced the behaviour change wheel [73].

• C. Holloway: Discussed next-generation assistive technologies [74].

• H. Dawes: Discussed next-generation assistive technologies [74].

• Mark: An example individual with a routine mobility pattern used to illustrate the difficulty in capturing mobility variation without technology.

• Eleanor: An example individual with a varied mobility pattern used to illustrate the difficulty in capturing mobility variation without technology.

6. FAQ

What is mobility in the context of quality of life?

• Mobility is defined as the "ability or capacity to move." In a scientific context, it's the ability to move oneself (with or without assistance) within various environments, from one's home to the broader community and beyond. Mobility is considered an activity limitation and is influenced by physical, cognitive, financial, environmental, and psychosocial factors, as well as gender, culture, and life experience. The World Health Organization's International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF) breaks down mobility into components like changing body position, handling objects, walking, and using transportation. Mobility is a necessary prerequisite for many activities essential for maintaining self, living space, work, recreation, and leisure, all of which contribute significantly to quality of life (QoL).

How is quality of life (QoL) defined and measured?

• Quality of Life is generally defined as individuals' perception of their position in life within their cultural context, considering their goals, expectations, standards, and concerns. It's a broader concept than just health status, encompassing how people perceive and react to their health and non-medical aspects of their lives, striving for "the happiest kind of life." QoL can be measured through various approaches: profile measures using multi-item questionnaires (like the WHOQOL-100 and WHOQOL-Bref) that produce domain scores and a total score; health indices (like the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index) which provide a single score based on multiple dimensions; and single-item measures rated on a scale. Traditionally, QoL assessment has relied on periodic self-reporting, but emerging technologies are enabling new ways to quantify domains related to QoL.

How is the concept of Quality of Life distinguished in relation to the person versus the body?

• The text highlights a distinction between the Quality of Life of the person and the Quality of Life of the body. The Quality of Life of the person is best reflected through global QoL measures and life satisfaction, which are subjective and best self-expressed. In contrast, the Quality of Life of the body is reflected in outcomes related to function, including physical, emotional, or psychological impairments, activity limitations (like mobility), and participation restrictions. The QoL of the body can potentially be monitored in real-time using personal, wearable technologies.

Why is mobility considered important for Quality of Life?

• Mobility is definitively important for Quality of Life, although its perceived importance can vary. For healthy individuals, mobility, particularly walking, is a key health-related QoL item. Limitations in mobility have a significant detrimental effect on perceived health, often valued more negatively than problems with self-care, usual activities, pain, or mood. Research shows that slower walking speed in older adults is associated with a significantly higher risk of death. For people with health conditions, where mobility is often limited, it becomes even more crucial to QoL, impacting opportunities for choice, social interactions, independence, and self-image. Mobility is included as a component in many generic and condition-specific QoL and health-related QoL measures.

How do qualitative data support the importance of mobility to QoL?

• Qualitative studies directly asking individuals about their experiences consistently highlight the importance of mobility to QoL. For example, a synthesis of studies on QoL after hip fracture identified limited mobility as a key contributor, affecting independence, opportunities for activity and social interaction, and threatening self-image. Similar findings emerge from studies on people with leg ulcers. In broader reviews of areas important for QoL across different health conditions like cancer, stroke, Multiple Sclerosis, and HIV, mobility/physical activity is frequently listed among the most important areas identified by patients.

What is the relationship between mobility, function, health perception, and Quality of Life?

• A theoretical model, combining the ICF and Wilson-Cleary model, illustrates the complex relationships. Impairments of body structure and function can lead to mobility limitations (activity limitations). These limitations, in turn, can restrict participation in personal, family, and societal roles. These observable manifestations of disability, along with symptoms (like pain or fatigue), influence a person's health perception (how they feel), which ultimately impacts their overall Quality of Life. This model shows that mobility is not directly equivalent to QoL but is a crucial link in the chain of factors that contribute to it.

What mobility parameters can be monitored using technology to assess the Quality of Life of the body?

• Emerging technologies, particularly wearable devices and smartphones, can monitor several mobility parameters that reflect the Quality of Life of the body. These include life-space mobility (how far from home a person moves, trackable via GPS or Cell-IDs), amount of vigorous activities (monitored by heart rate and accelerations), time spent in activity vs. sedentary time (using accelerometers), speed of movement (step cadence), duration and frequency of activity bouts, higher levels of physical activity (like stair climbing), transitions from sitting to standing, and even indicators of motor impairments such as slowness, tremor, posture, balance, and gait quality (requiring different sensor placements).

How do emerging technologies offer a glimpse into the future of monitoring and improving Quality of Life, particularly concerning mobility?

• The increasing availability of miniaturized, personalized, and connected technologies like smartwatches and unobtrusive sensors is poised to revolutionize the monitoring of the Quality of Life of the body, starting with mobility. These technologies can continuously track various mobility parameters and body functions, providing individuals with real-time feedback on their physical state and how it's influenced by different factors. This allows for greater self-awareness and empowers individuals to take charge of their body's QoL. In the future, these devices could provide engaging and effective feedback to encourage healthy mobility habits and positively influence a person's overall QoL in the long term. They also offer potential for remediating mobility issues and disrupting traditional approaches to disability and rehabilitation.

7. Table of Contents

Introduction and Welcome ................................. 0:00

Welcome to Heliox and introduction to the Deep Dive format, setting the stage for exploring the connection between mobility and quality of life

Defining Mobility: Beyond Simple Movement ................... 2:15

Exploring the comprehensive definition of mobility as movement across life spaces, from home to regions beyond, influenced by complex factors

WHO Framework and Building Blocks ......................... 4:30

Breaking down the World Health Organization's framework for mobility actions: body positioning, carrying, walking, and transportation

Capacity vs Performance: The Critical Distinction .......... 6:45

Understanding the difference between what you can do (capacity) and what you actually do (performance), illustrated through Mark and Eleanor examples

Quality of Life: The Happiest of Lives ................... 10:20

Examining the complexity of measuring quality of life, from WHO definitions to traditional measurement approaches

Traditional Measurement Methods ........................... 12:35

Overview of profile measures, health indices, and single-item measures used to assess quality of life

Quality of Life Technologies: The New Frontier ............ 15:10

Introduction to tech-enabled assessment and improvement of quality of life through continuous monitoring

The Evidence: What People Say Matters .................... 17:45

Qualitative research showing mobility's fundamental importance across various health conditions and patient populations

The Hard Data: Quantitative Proof ........................ 21:20

Statistical evidence including EQ5D findings and mortality risk data demonstrating mobility's impact on quality of life

Technology's Tracking Capabilities ....................... 25:30

Comprehensive overview of what current technology can monitor: life-space mobility, activity levels, gait parameters, and underlying impairments

Beyond Step Counting: Advanced Metrics ................... 29:15

Exploring sophisticated measurements like cadence, transitions, tremor detection, and postural analysis

The Future of Personalized Monitoring .................... 33:40

Vision of integrated, continuous, real-time feedback systems using miniaturized sensors and smart devices

The Big Picture: Mobility as Life's Foundation ........... 37:20

Synthesizing the evidence for mobility as a fundamental pillar supporting quality of life and human engagement

Closing Thoughts and Reflection .......................... 40:30

Final considerations on the relationship between objective body function measurement and subjective life satisfaction

Conclusion and Recurring Themes .......................... 42:45

Wrap-up highlighting the four recurring narratives of boundary dissolution, adaptive complexity, embodied knowledge, and quantum-like uncertainty

8. Index

Index: Gait and Mobility Plus Dynamic Quality of Life

Accelerometers - 27:15, 31:20

Activities of daily living - 4:30, 17:45

Adaptive complexity - 42:45

Ankle sensors - 32:10

Anxiety tracking - 26:45

Apple Podcasts - 42:45

Balance issues - 31:05

Body positioning - 4:30

Boundary dissolution - 42:45

Cadence measurement - 29:15, 30:20

Cancer patients - 18:30

Capacity vs performance - 6:45, 8:20, 30:45

Chronic leg ulcers - 17:45

Clinical testing - 6:45, 31:20

Continuous monitoring - 15:10, 33:40

EQ5D health index - 12:35, 21:20, 22:30

Eleanor example - 7:30, 8:20

Embodied knowledge - 42:45

Environmental factors - 3:15, 21:20

Fall risk - 29:45, 31:05

Gait speed - 22:30, 29:45, 30:20

GPS tracking - 25:30

Golf course example - 28:45

Happiest of lives - 10:20, 16:15

Health indices - 12:35

Health utilities index - 12:35, 24:15

Heart rate monitoring - 26:15, 33:40

Hip fracture - 17:45

HIV patients - 18:30

ICF core sets - 24:30

Independence - 2:15, 17:45

Inertial sensors - 32:10

Life-space mobility - 25:30, 33:40

Mark example - 7:30, 8:20

Miniaturization - 15:10, 33:40

Mortality risk - 22:45

MS patients - 18:30, 30:45

Multiple sclerosis - 18:30, 30:45

Personalized feedback - 35:20

Physical therapy - 31:20

Posture monitoring - 31:05, 32:10

Profile measures - 12:35

Quality of Life Technologies - 15:10

Quality of life of the body - 16:15, 35:40, 37:20

Quality of life of the person - 16:15, 35:40

Quantum-like uncertainty - 42:45

Real-world performance - 8:20, 30:45

Regions beyond - 2:45, 37:45

Self-report measures - 14:30

Single item measures - 13:20

Sixth vital sign - 23:10, 29:45

Smartphone apps - 31:45

Social connections - 3:15, 17:45, 25:30

Stair climbing - 28:30

Stroke survivors - 18:30, 19:15

Structural equation modeling - 20:45

Subjective perception - 11:30

Technology tracking - 25:30

Timed up-and-go test - 31:20

Transportation use - 4:30

Tremor detection - 31:05, 31:45

Wearable technology - 15:10, 33:40

WHO framework - 4:30

WHO QOL measures - 12:35

World Health Organization - 4:30, 10:45

9. Post-Episode Fact Check

Accurate Information:

• WHO definition and framework for mobility is correctly cited

• EQ5D health index values and methodology are accurate

• Gait speed as "sixth vital sign" is a recognized clinical concept

• Mortality risk statistics (1.89x higher risk for slow walkers) align with published research

• Health utility measures and their applications are correctly described

• Technology capabilities mentioned (GPS tracking, accelerometers, heart rate monitoring) are current and accurate

Appropriately Qualified Statements:

• The podcast appropriately presents estimates (e.g., "mobility could explain maybe around a third of overall quality of life") rather than definitive claims

• Research limitations are acknowledged (e.g., noting that many studies look at QOL components rather than global life satisfaction)

• The distinction between correlation and causation is appropriately maintained

Minor Considerations:

• Some specific numerical values (like the -0.558 EQ5D weight) would benefit from citation to specific studies, though the general magnitude appears consistent with health economics literature

• The "six years of life trade-off" calculation is presented as derived from standard methods, which is appropriate given the hypothetical nature of such valuations

Overall Assessment: The content demonstrates strong scientific grounding with appropriate caveats and limitations noted. The podcast maintains academic rigor while making complex concepts accessible.

10. Image (3000 x 3000 pixels)