Clinical Walking Speed, Free-Living Walking Cadence, and All-Cause Mortality
8 affiliations
- 1Department of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
- 2Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics, Epidemiology of Ageing and Neurodegenerative Diseases, Université Paris Cité, Inserm U1153, National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment, Paris, France
- 3Assessment of Movement Behaviours Group, Diabetes Research Centre, College of Life Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
- 4Leicester Diabetes Centre, Leicester General Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester National Health Service Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom
- 5Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity, School of Allied Health and Human Performance, Adelaide University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- 6Accelting, Almere, the Netherlands
- 7University of Rennes, Laboratoire Mouvement, Sport, Santé, Rennes, France
- 8Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom
Abstract
Importance: Walking speed has been shown to be associated with mortality and is conventionally obtained from short walking tests in clinical settings. Free-living walking parameters such as walking cadence can be derived from accelerometers.
Objective: To examine whether walking parameters measured in clinical and free-living settings are associated with comparable discriminative ability for all-cause mortality risk.
Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study, the Whitehall II accelerometer substudy in the UK, included a baseline from January 2012 to December 2013 and follow-up through August 19, 2024. The study included participants with valid accelerometer data, clinical walking speed, covariates, and electronic health records information. Analyses were performed between September 2025 and February 2026.
Exposures: Clinical walking speed in meters per second was obtained from a 2.44-m walking test, and 2 free-living metrics of walking cadence in steps per minute (the median walking cadence and the 95th percentile walking cadence) were derived from 9 days of wrist-worn accelerometer data.
Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality was ascertained from a British national mortality register. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause mortality. Discriminative ability was assessed using the Harrel concordance index (C index).
Results: A total of 4067 participants (mean [SD] age, 69.3 [5.7] years; 3024 males [74.4%]) were included in the analysis. The median (IQR) follow-up was 11.8 (11.5-12.1) years. In models containing mortality risk factors (sociodemographic, behavioral, and health-related factors), higher clinical walking speed (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.71-0.84]), median walking cadence (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.77-0.90]), and 95th percentile walking cadence (HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.75-0.89]) were associated with lower all-cause mortality risk (per 1 higher SD) and with a similar discriminative ability (clinical walking speed: C index, 0.747 [95% CI, 0.730-0.764]; median walking cadence: C index, 0.744 [95% CI, 0.726-0.761]; and 95th percentile walking cadence: C index, 0.745 [95% CI, 0.727-0.762]). Only clinical walking speed was associated with an improved discriminative ability of a model including mortality risk factors.
Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, clinical walking speed and free-living walking cadence were both associated with all-cause mortality risk and had a similar discriminative ability for all-cause mortality. These results suggest that both measures can be used in population-based studies, and the choice between the 2 methods may depend on research objectives, implementation constraints, and the strengths of each method.
Related
- Beyond Walking Speed: Estimating and Classifying Post-Stroke Gait Propulsion From Standardized Clinical Measures
- Walking speed and propulsion asymmetry as distinct diagnostic biomarkers of gait impairment: Towards precision rehabilitation after stroke
- Minimal Detectable Change in Gait Biomechanics Post-Stroke: Disentangling the Effects of Walking Speed and Stroke-Related Variability
- Investigating the relationship between dynamic balance, agility, and walking speed in female basketball players compared with non-active females.
- Beyond functional disability: longitudinal joint trajectories of muscle strength and walking speed and their association with new-onset diabetes risk among older adults without ADL impairment
BibTeX
@article{haddadj2026clinical,
title = {{Clinical Walking Speed, Free-Living Walking Cadence, and All-Cause Mortality}},
author = {Rayane Haddadj and Ian Meneghel Danilevicz and Alex V. Rowlands and Vincent T. van Hees and Benjamin Landré and Alexis Le Faucheur and Archana Singh-Manoux and Paul Jarle Mork and Séverine Sabia},
journal = {JAMA Network Open},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.40122},
url = {https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2855781},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Clinical Walking Speed, Free-Living Walking Cadence, and All-Cause Mortality
AU - Rayane Haddadj
AU - Ian Meneghel Danilevicz
AU - Alex V. Rowlands
AU - Vincent T. van Hees
AU - Benjamin Landré
AU - Alexis Le Faucheur
AU - Archana Singh-Manoux
AU - Paul Jarle Mork
AU - Séverine Sabia
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - JAMA Network Open
DO - 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.40122
UR - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2855781
AB - Importance: Walking speed has been shown to be associated with mortality and is conventionally obtained from short walking tests in clinical settings. Free-living walking parameters such as walking cadence can be derived from accelerometers. Objective: To examine whether walking parameters measured in clinical and free-living settings are associated with comparable discriminative ability for all-cause mortality risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study, the Whitehall II accelerometer substudy in the UK, included a baseline from January 2012 to December 2013 and follow-up through August 19, 2024. The study included participants with valid accelerometer data, clinical walking speed, covariates, and electronic health records information. Analyses were performed between September 2025 and February 2026. Exposures: Clinical walking speed in meters per second was obtained from a 2.44-m walking test, and 2 free-living metrics of walking cadence in steps per minute (the median walking cadence and the 95th percentile walking cadence) were derived from 9 days of wrist-worn accelerometer data. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality was ascertained from a British national mortality register. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause mortality. Discriminative ability was assessed using the Harrel concordance index (C index). Results: A total of 4067 participants (mean [SD] age, 69.3 [5.7] years; 3024 males [74.4%]) were included in the analysis. The median (IQR) follow-up was 11.8 (11.5-12.1) years. In models containing mortality risk factors (sociodemographic, behavioral, and health-related factors), higher clinical walking speed (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.71-0.84]), median walking cadence (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.77-0.90]), and 95th percentile walking cadence (HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.75-0.89]) were associated with lower all-cause mortality risk (per 1 higher SD) and with a similar discriminative ability (clinical walking speed: C index, 0.747 [95% CI, 0.730-0.764]; median walking cadence: C index, 0.744 [95% CI, 0.726-0.761]; and 95th percentile walking cadence: C index, 0.745 [95% CI, 0.727-0.762]). Only clinical walking speed was associated with an improved discriminative ability of a model including mortality risk factors. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, clinical walking speed and free-living walking cadence were both associated with all-cause mortality risk and had a similar discriminative ability for all-cause mortality. These results suggest that both measures can be used in population-based studies, and the choice between the 2 methods may depend on research objectives, implementation constraints, and the strengths of each method.
SN - 2574-3805
ER -