Older medical patients’ experiences with mobility during hospitalization and the WALK-Copenhagen (WALK-Cph) intervention: A qualitative study in Denmark

•Older medical patients’ practices of in-hospital mobility are diverse and influenced by experiences with illness and recovery, encouragement and support from others, materialities in the hospital and wishes to return to everyday active lives.•Interventions aiming at increasing in-hospital mobility should not solely aim at reshaping patients at risk of decline to physical active subjects, but rather consider the various ways patients’ practices of mobility take form in and outside the hospital.•Nurses’ and nurse practitioners’ promotion of in-hospital mobility should incorporate a broad concept of active ageing – and ageing in general – that includes the communities and activities which older patients are already part of upon admission to the hospital. Some older patients easily buy into the premises of an “active” mobility intervention, while others are more sceptical.•Activity and rest go hand in hand. Thus, in-hospital mobility interventions are most effective, if they are presented with respect for what is perceived as meaningful to the individual patient.•Older patients’ practices of mobility are related to the physical environment of the hospital, which has both encouraging and discouraging properties. This must be taken into account when designing in-hospital mobility interventions. For years, bed rest and low mobility amongst older, hospitalized patients have attracted researchers’ attention and efforts have been made to understand how and why interventions might work or not. This study explores older medical patients’ experiences with the WALK Copenhagen (WALK-Cph) intervention, which aims at increasing in-hospital mobility and with mobility during hospitalization more generally. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 patients aged 65 to 93 (mean=77, SD=8) in two Danish hospital departments. Overall, the fundamental idea of the intervention was regarded meaningful and relevant by the patients. The intervention components, however, were interpreted in different ways and risked becoming invisible. Thus, the intervention was not a quick fix to increase mobility, as the patients had different experiences with in-hospital mobility. The patients’ practices of in-hospital mobility were influenced by personal experiences with illness and recovery, encouragement and support from others, hospital materialities and wishes to return to everyday active lives.