Emmett Keeler1, Jack M Guralnik, Haijun Tian, Robert B Wallace, David B Reuben. 1. Multicampus Program in Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, 10945 Le Conte Avenue, Suite 2339, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1687.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although life tables provide a basis for estimating remaining life by age, gender, and race, these tables do not consider clinical characteristics or functional status, which can lead to wide variations in remaining years. Inclusion of functional status may permit more precise prognostic estimates of life expectancy and proportion of time in various functional states. METHODS: We used longitudinal data from the Established Populations for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly to determine transition probabilities between three functional states (independent in activities of daily living [ADL] and mobility, dependent in mobility but independent in ADL, and dependent in ADL) and death. These were used to estimate total life expectancy and life expectancy in each functional state. RESULTS: In general, the largest proportion of remaining life expectancy was spent in the persons' baseline functional status category. Persons younger than 80 years with dependencies, however, spend substantial proportions of their remaining years in a better functional status category, and mobility-disabled 70-year-old persons spend the greatest part of their life expectancy in the independent functional state. Functional status has a dramatic impact on life expectancy. For example, 75-year-old men and women without limitations have life expectancies 5 years longer than those with ADL limitation and more than 1 year longer than those limited in mobility. The life expectancy of an ADL-disabled 75-year-old is similar to that of an 85-year-old independent person; thus, the impact of the disability approximates being 10 years older with much more of the remaining life spent disabled. CONCLUSIONS: Both ADL and mobility disability result in diminished survival and more of that survival period spent in disabled states.
BACKGROUND: Although life tables provide a basis for estimating remaining life by age, gender, and race, these tables do not consider clinical characteristics or functional status, which can lead to wide variations in remaining years. Inclusion of functional status may permit more precise prognostic estimates of life expectancy and proportion of time in various functional states. METHODS: We used longitudinal data from the Established Populations for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly to determine transition probabilities between three functional states (independent in activities of daily living [ADL] and mobility, dependent in mobility but independent in ADL, and dependent in ADL) and death. These were used to estimate total life expectancy and life expectancy in each functional state. RESULTS: In general, the largest proportion of remaining life expectancy was spent in the persons' baseline functional status category. Persons younger than 80 years with dependencies, however, spend substantial proportions of their remaining years in a better functional status category, and mobility-disabled 70-year-old persons spend the greatest part of their life expectancy in the independent functional state. Functional status has a dramatic impact on life expectancy. For example, 75-year-old men and women without limitations have life expectancies 5 years longer than those with ADL limitation and more than 1 year longer than those limited in mobility. The life expectancy of an ADL-disabled 75-year-old is similar to that of an 85-year-old independent person; thus, the impact of the disability approximates being 10 years older with much more of the remaining life spent disabled. CONCLUSIONS: Both ADL and mobility disability result in diminished survival and more of that survival period spent in disabled states.
Authors: David B Reuben; Teresa E Seeman; Emmett Keeler; Risa P Hayes; Lee Bowman; Ase Sewall; Susan H Hirsch; Robert B Wallace; Jack M Guralnik Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2004-06
Authors: L P Fried; C M Tangen; J Walston; A B Newman; C Hirsch; J Gottdiener; T Seeman; R Tracy; W J Kop; G Burke; M A McBurnie Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Lillian Min; William Yoon; Jeff Mariano; Neil S Wenger; Marc N Elliott; Caren Kamberg; Debra Saliba Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2009-09-28 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Niki B Vora; Karen L Connolly; Stephen Dusza; Anthony M Rossi; Kishwer S Nehal; Erica H Lee Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2020-04-19 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: B Gwen Windham; Michael E Griswold; Seth Lirette; Anna Kucharska-Newton; Randi E Foraker; Wayne Rosamond; Josef Coresh; Stephen Kritchevsky; Thomas H Mosley Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Keturah R Faurot; Michele Jonsson Funk; Virginia Pate; M Alan Brookhart; Amanda Patrick; Laura C Hanson; Wendy Camelo Castillo; Til Stürmer Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Zi Zhang; Dawei Xie; Jibby E Kurichi; Joel Streim; Guangyu Zhang; Margaret G Stineman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-03-16 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Catherine Marinac; Ruth E Patterson; Adriana Villasenor; Shirley W Flatt; John P Pierce Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Elizabeth K Rasch; Minh Huynh; Pei-Shu Ho; Aaron Heuser; Andrew Houtenville; Leighton Chan Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 2.983