Yiren Wang
Loughborough University, UK
Beyond a motivation problem
Beyond a motivation problemCommunity walking groups, exercise classes and other physical activity programmes often begin with a sensible ambition: create more opportunities for older adults to stay active. Yet the existence of an opportunity does not necessarily make it accessible.
An older person may want to be active but still face a venue that is difficult to reach, a booking process that feels unfamiliar, concerns about falling, or the discomfort of entering a new group alone. Cost, health, transport and previous experiences of sport can all shape a decision that, from the outside, may simply look like a lack of motivation.
Research supports this broader view. Meredith et al. (2023) synthesised 25 qualitative studies involving almost 5,000 community-dwelling older adults. Using the Capability–Opportunity–Motivation Behaviour framework, they found that participation was shaped by interacting factors including functional capacity, perceived risk of injury, the fit between the individual and the environment, opportunities for social interaction, ageing stereotypes, identity and enjoyment. Motivation mattered, but it was only one part of the picture.
Kilgour et al. (2024) reached a similar conclusion from quantitative evidence. Across 37 studies involving 26,961 adults aged 70 and over, frequently reported barriers included concerns about health and fitness, lack of interest or motivation, fear of falling and environmental obstacles. Support from family and friends, social interaction, perceived benefits and access to outdoor facilities were among the most commonly reported motivators.
For community sport and physical activity providers, this shifts the starting question. Rather than asking only how older adults can be persuaded to exercise, it is also worth asking what makes an opportunity practical to find, reach, join and return to.
That distinction moves some of the responsibility away from the individual and towards the way participation is designed.
Physical activity can help; access is less straightforward.
There is substantial evidence that interventions can help older adults become more physically active. A 2026 overview by Canneaux et al. brought together 35 systematic reviews covering 480 unique primary studies and more than 270,000 participants. Overall, the evidence suggested that interventions can increase physical activity in the short term, although evidence for sustained change beyond 12 months was more limited and mixed.
For community providers, the challenge is not simply to identify activities that work, but to understand who is able to get through the door in the first place.
Different forms of activity can also serve different purposes. Pillay et al. (2024), for example, reviewed 219 trials on falls prevention among community-dwelling older adults. The strongest evidence of benefit was associated with several interventions centred on exercise, particularly supervised and longer-duration balance and resistance programmes and group Tai Chi. Tong et al. (2025), meanwhile, reviewed 84 studies of nature-based interventions and found a range of physical, psychological and social pathways through which engagement with natural environments may support older adults’ wellbeing.
But evidence of effectiveness answers only part of the practical question.
Most intervention research tells us what happens to people who enter a programme. It tells us much less about those who never enrol, attend once and leave, or decide that the activity does not feel as though it was designed with them in mind.
Canneaux et al. also identified weaknesses in the reporting of equity characteristics across the existing evidence base. Socioeconomic circumstances, disability and other dimensions of disadvantage were often insufficiently reported, making it difficult to know whether interventions were reaching older adults evenly.
An intervention can therefore be effective for its participants and still have limited reach. For community providers, the challenge is not simply to identify activities that work, but to understand who is able to get through the door in the first place.
Access begins before the first session
Accessibility is sometimes treated as a feature of the venue: Is it nearby? Does it have suitable facilities? Can people enter the building easily?
From a participant’s perspective, access begins much earlier.
Malkowski et al. (2025) reviewed 30 studies examining physical activity among older adults of lower socioeconomic status. Many of the barriers they identified related to opportunity rather than individual willingness: neighbourhood safety, pedestrian infrastructure, access to places where activity could happen, the quality of the local environment, social support and social engagement.
These conditions interact. Reduced mobility becomes more restrictive when pavements or road crossings are difficult to navigate. A programme may advertise itself as low-cost while still requiring transport. A nearby outdoor space may exist without feeling safe or comfortable to use. Support from friends or family can make participation easier, while isolation can make even a technically accessible activity difficult to begin.
Access also has a social and cultural dimension.
Ezeokoli et al. (2026), reviewing research on physical activity among South Asian adults aged 65 and over, found that uptake and adherence were influenced by physical limitations, family responsibilities, knowledge, social norms and motivation. Social support, supervised group activity and supportive environments could make participation easier.
These findings should not be turned into assumptions about what any particular ethnic or cultural group wants. That would replace inclusion with stereotyping. Their value lies in showing that participation takes place within social lives. Family roles, language, previous experiences, expectations around exercise and the make-up of a group can affect whether an opportunity feels relevant and welcoming.
The first point of contact is also increasingly digital. Clemson et al. (2025) asked 19 adults aged between 65 and 84 to explore websites advertising physical activity opportunities. Participants paid attention not only to practical information but also to imagery and language when judging whether an activity seemed suitable and welcoming. Around a third rated their own digital ability poorly, even though most were able to navigate the sites without major difficulty.
The implication is not that older adults cannot or do not want to use digital services. It is that a digital route should not quietly become the only route. Clear information and the option to speak to somebody, visit a venue or register another way can reduce unnecessary friction.
A programme can be physically accessible while its route into participation remains difficult.
Designing for participation
If barriers arise before people ever begin exercising, better health messages alone are unlikely to solve the problem. Programme design needs to make participation easier.
Co-design is often proposed as part of the solution. The idea is attractive: rather than designing a programme for older adults and presenting the finished product to them, providers involve potential participants in decisions about activities, timing, location or delivery.
A welcoming instructor, familiar faces and the opportunity to talk before or after a session can influence whether attendance becomes a habit rather than a one-off visit.
The evidence, however, deserves careful interpretation. Zacharuk et al. (2024) reviewed eight studies involving 16,733 participants. Although several individual studies favoured co-designed approaches, only two could be combined in the meta-analysis. That pooled result did not show a statistically significant advantage for co-design, and the certainty of the evidence was very low. Co-design should therefore not be presented as a guaranteed way of increasing physical activity.
Its practical value may be different. It can help providers discover barriers they would otherwise overlook.
McGowan et al. (2025) explored the experiences of 34 older adults and 13 service providers involved in a UK physical activity programme developed using participatory approaches. Their analysis found that co-designed activities were perceived as meeting participants’ needs and encouraging attendance. Enjoyment and accessibility were also important, while the study highlighted the support required by the people delivering community programmes.
That suggests several fairly ordinary questions may be more useful than ambitious promises about personalised provision. Is the timing realistic? Does the description make sense to someone who has not exercised regularly for years? Is there a way to register without navigating an unfamiliar digital system? Does a new participant know what will happen on the first visit? Does the venue feel approachable?
The social experience deserves similar attention. For some participants, the reason to return will be partly the exercise and partly the relationships surrounding it. A welcoming instructor, familiar faces and the opportunity to talk before or after a session can influence whether attendance becomes a habit rather than a one-off visit. Research among older adults of lower socioeconomic status similarly highlights the role of social interaction and support in enabling physical activity.
None of this means that every activity needs to be highly personalised. It means removing avoidable barriers. Online booking can exist alongside telephone or face-to-face registration. Information can explain not only what the activity is, but what level of ability is expected and what a first session looks like. Familiar community settings may lower the threshold for some activities, while specialist facilities will remain appropriate for others.
The aim is to narrow the gap between making an opportunity available and making it genuinely usable.
From provision to participation
This distinction matters for sport management because provision and participation are not the same thing.
It is relatively easy to count sessions, places and attendances. Those figures are useful, but they do not reveal who has been reached. A full class may represent a successful programme while still drawing repeatedly from people who were already confident, mobile and active.
If community sport wants to support active ageing, the question is not only whether older adults are motivated to take part. It is whether we have designed opportunities that make participation realistically possible.
Evaluation can therefore ask a broader set of questions. Who hears about the programme? Who expresses interest but never attends? Who comes once and does not return? Who is still attending after several months? Which groups appear repeatedly under-represented?
These questions are particularly important given the weaknesses in equity reporting identified in the wider intervention literature. If research often struggles to show who is being reached, community provision risks reproducing the same blind spot.
Retention also deserves more attention than launch-day attendance. A well-promoted programme may attract an initial group without becoming part of participants’ lives. Understanding why people stop attending may reveal more about accessibility than simply recording how many people registered.
Community sport organisations cannot solve every barrier themselves. They do not control public transport, neighbourhood design, family responsibilities or socioeconomic inequality. But they can recognise that these factors affect participation and work with community organisations, local services and existing social networks rather than treating physical activity provision as an isolated service.
The goal is not simply more activity on the timetable. It is wider, more sustainable participation.
Active ageing needs enabling environments
Physical activity can contribute to healthier and more connected later lives, and there is substantial evidence that well-designed interventions can help older adults become more active. The harder task is ensuring that those opportunities extend beyond the people for whom participation is already relatively easy.
Older adults make decisions within real environments: changing bodies, neighbourhoods, transport systems, family responsibilities, digital platforms, social networks and cultural expectations. Motivation belongs in that picture, but it does not explain the picture on its own.
For community sport and physical activity providers, success should therefore mean more than creating a programme and demonstrating benefits among those who attend. It should also involve asking who can find the opportunity, who can reach it, who feels welcome, who returns and who remains absent.
If community sport wants to support active ageing, the question is not only whether older adults are motivated to take part. It is whether we have designed opportunities that make participation realistically possible.
Copyright © Yiren Wang 2026
References
Canneaux, J., Sharpe, R.A., Orr, N. et al. (2026). Physical activity interventions for older adults – an overview of systematic reviews. BMC Public Health, 26, 205. doi:10.1186/s12889-025-25002-2.
Clemson, V., Grey, E., Barnett, J., Burfitt, E. and Gillison, F. (2025). Exploring older adult’s views of the age-inclusivity of physical activity websites using the think aloud method: Qualitative analysis. JMIR Aging, 8, e68951. doi:10.2196/68951.
Ezeokoli, O., Tsocheva, I., Randhawa, G. et al. (2026). Barriers and facilitators to physical activity uptake and adherence among older South Asians: A qualitative systematic review. BMC Geriatrics, 26, 774. doi:10.1186/s12877-026-07453-3.
Kilgour, A.H.M., Rutherford, M., Higson, J. et al. (2024). Barriers and motivators to undertaking physical activity in adults over 70—a systematic review of the quantitative literature. Age and Ageing, 53(4), afae080. doi:10.1093/ageing/afae080.
Malkowski, O.S., Harvey, J., Townsend, N.P. et al. (2025). Enablers and barriers to physical activity among older adults of low socio-economic status: A systematic review of qualitative literature. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 22, 82. doi:10.1186/s12966-025-01753-4.
McGowan, L.J., Davies, A., French, D.P. et al. (2025). Understanding the experiences of older adult participants and individuals involved in the delivery of a physical activity programme based on participatory approaches: A qualitative analysis. British Journal of Health Psychology, 30(1), e12747. doi:10.1111/bjhp.12747.
Meredith, S.J., Cox, N.J., Ibrahim, K. et al. (2023). Factors that influence older adults’ participation in physical activity: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Age and Ageing, 52(8), afad145. doi:10.1093/ageing/afad145.
Pillay, J., Gaudet, L.A., Saba, S. et al. (2024). Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences. Systematic Reviews, 13, 289. doi:10.1186/s13643-024-02681-3.
Tong, K., Ward Thompson, C., Carin-Levy, G., Liddle, J., Morton, S. and Mead, G.E. (2025). Nature-based interventions for older adults: A systematic review of intervention types and methods, health effects and pathways. Age and Ageing, 54(4), afaf084. doi:10.1093/ageing/afaf084.
Zacharuk, A., Ferguson, A., Komar, C. et al. (2024). The effects of co-designed physical activity interventions in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 19(5), e0297675. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0297675.
