Jane M Cramm1, Anna P Nieboer. 1. Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. cramm@bmg.eur.nl
Abstract
AIM: The relationships between frailty and neighborhood social resources and neighborhood quality among community-dwelling older people are poorly understood. We therefore enquired into these associations while controlling for important individual characteristics. METHODS: Our cross-sectional study included 945 out of 1440 (66% response rate) community-dwelling older people (aged ≥ 70 years) in Rotterdam. The sample included approximately 430 older adults per district and was proportional with respect to neighborhood and age. Potential participants were mailed questionnaires, non-respondents were first sent a reminder, then asked by telephone and finally visited at home to complete the questionnaire. RESULTS: Age, sex, marital status and level of education varied between the frail and non-frail. A significantly larger proportion of the frail was female (64.4% vs 48.0%; P ≤ 0.001), fewer were married (22.1% vs 48.4%; P ≤ 0.001) and the frail were, on average, older than the non-frail (78.8 vs 76.0 years; P ≤ 0.001). A significantly larger proportion of the frail were poorly educated (25.9% vs 18.6%; P ≤ 0.01). Multilevel regression analyses showed that older age (P<0.001) was associated with higher likelihood of frailty and marital status (P<0.001) with lower likelihood of frailty. Feeling more secure (P<0.001) and having a stronger sense of social cohesion and neighborhood belonging (P<0.05) seemed to protect against frailty. CONCLUSION: The results of this study support the importance of feeling safe, social cohesion and a sense of belonging within the neighborhood. These findings could have important implications for efforts to reduce frailty of older people within communities.
AIM: The relationships between frailty and neighborhood social resources and neighborhood quality among community-dwelling older people are poorly understood. We therefore enquired into these associations while controlling for important individual characteristics. METHODS: Our cross-sectional study included 945 out of 1440 (66% response rate) community-dwelling older people (aged ≥ 70 years) in Rotterdam. The sample included approximately 430 older adults per district and was proportional with respect to neighborhood and age. Potential participants were mailed questionnaires, non-respondents were first sent a reminder, then asked by telephone and finally visited at home to complete the questionnaire. RESULTS: Age, sex, marital status and level of education varied between the frail and non-frail. A significantly larger proportion of the frail was female (64.4% vs 48.0%; P ≤ 0.001), fewer were married (22.1% vs 48.4%; P ≤ 0.001) and the frail were, on average, older than the non-frail (78.8 vs 76.0 years; P ≤ 0.001). A significantly larger proportion of the frail were poorly educated (25.9% vs 18.6%; P ≤ 0.01). Multilevel regression analyses showed that older age (P<0.001) was associated with higher likelihood of frailty and marital status (P<0.001) with lower likelihood of frailty. Feeling more secure (P<0.001) and having a stronger sense of social cohesion and neighborhood belonging (P<0.05) seemed to protect against frailty. CONCLUSION: The results of this study support the importance of feeling safe, social cohesion and a sense of belonging within the neighborhood. These findings could have important implications for efforts to reduce frailty of older people within communities.
Authors: G Liotta; O Madaro; P Scarcella; M C Inzerilli; B Frattini; F Riccardi; N Accarino; S Mancinelli; E Terracciano; S Orlando; M C Marazzi Journal: Transl Med UniSa Date: 2020-10-01
Authors: Jimmy Phuong; Stephanie Hong; Matvey B Palchuk; Juan Espinoza; Daniella Meeker; David A Dorr; Galina Lozinski; Charisse Madlock-Brown; William G Adams Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2022-05-23
Authors: David A Dorr; Ana R Quiñones; Taylor King; Melissa Y Wei; Kellee White; Cosmin A Bejan Journal: Med Care Date: 2022-06-04 Impact factor: 3.178