Literature DB >> 23932426

Towards measurement of the Healthy Ageing Phenotype in lifestyle-based intervention studies.

Jose Lara1, Alan Godfrey, Elizabeth Evans, Ben Heaven, Laura J E Brown, Evelyn Barron, Lynn Rochester, Thomas D Meyer, John C Mathers.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Given the biological complexity of the ageing process, there is no single, simple and reliable measure of how healthily someone is ageing. Intervention studies need a panel of measures which capture key features of healthy ageing. To help guide our research in this area, we have adopted the concept of the "Healthy Ageing Phenotype" (HAP) and this study aimed to (i) identify the most important features of the HAP and (ii) identify/develop tools for measurement of those features.
METHODS: After a comprehensive assessment of the literature we selected the following domains: physiological and metabolic health, physical capability, cognitive function, social wellbeing, and psychological wellbeing which we hoped would provide a reasonably holistic characterisation of the HAP. We reviewed the literature and identified systematic reviews and/or meta-analysis of cohort studies, and clinical guidelines on outcome measures of these domains relevant to the HAP. Selection criteria for these measures included: frequent use in longitudinal studies of ageing; expected to change with age; evidence for strong association with/prediction of ageing-related phenotypes such as morbidity, mortality and lifespan; whenever possible, focus on studies measuring these outcomes in populations rather than on individuals selected on the basis of a particular disease; (bio)markers that respond to (lifestyle-based) intervention. Proposed markers were exposed to critique in a Workshop held in Newcastle, UK in October 2012.
RESULTS: We have selected a tentative panel of (bio)markers of physiological and metabolic health, physical capability, cognitive function, social wellbeing, and psychological wellbeing which we propose may be useful in characterising the HAP and which may have utility as outcome measures in intervention studies. In addition, we have identified a number of tools which could be applied in community-based intervention studies designed to enhance healthy ageing.
CONCLUSIONS: We have proposed, tentatively, a panel of outcome measures which could be deployed in community-based, lifestyle intervention studies. The evidence base for selection of measurement domains is less well developed in some areas e.g. social wellbeing (where the definition of the concept itself remains elusive) and this has implications for the identification of appropriate tools. Although we have developed this panel as potential outcomes for intervention studies, we recognise that broader agreement on the concept of the HAP and on tools for its measurement could have wider utility and e.g. could facilitate comparisons of healthy ageing across diverse study designs and populations.
Copyright © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cognitive function; Healthy Ageing Phenotype; Physical capability; Physiological and metabolic health; Psychological wellbeing; Social wellbeing

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23932426     DOI: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2013.07.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Maturitas        ISSN: 0378-5122            Impact factor:   4.342


  40 in total

1.  Age-related changes in leg proprioception: implications for postural control.

Authors:  Mélanie Henry; Stéphane Baudry
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2019-06-05       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Survivors of childhood cancer in the United States: prevalence and burden of morbidity.

Authors:  Siobhan M Phillips; Lynne S Padgett; Wendy M Leisenring; Kayla K Stratton; Ken Bishop; Kevin R Krull; Catherine M Alfano; Todd M Gibson; Janet S de Moor; Danielle Blanch Hartigan; Gregory T Armstrong; Leslie L Robison; Julia H Rowland; Kevin C Oeffinger; Angela B Mariotto
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Low normal FMR1 genotype in older adult women: Psychological well-being and motor function.

Authors:  Jessica Klusek; Roger Newman-Norlund; Amanda J Fairchild; Sarah Newman-Norlund; Sara Sayers; Jill C Stewart; Elizabeth Berry-Kravis; Julius Fridriksson
Journal:  Arch Gerontol Geriatr       Date:  2022-08-12       Impact factor: 4.163

4.  The healthy aging phenotype in older people in Manizales

Authors:  Carmen Lucía Curcio; Andrés Fernando Giraldo; Fernando Gómez
Journal:  Biomedica       Date:  2020-03-01       Impact factor: 0.935

5.  A Model for Estimating Biological Age From Physiological Biomarkers of Healthy Aging: Cross-sectional Study.

Authors:  Karina Louise Skov Husted; Andreas Brink-Kjær; Mathilde Fogelstrøm; Pernille Hulst; Akita Bleibach; Kaj-Åge Henneberg; Helge Bjarup Dissing Sørensen; Flemming Dela; Jens Christian Brings Jacobsen; Jørn Wulff Helge
Journal:  JMIR Aging       Date:  2022-05-10

Review 6.  Blood-borne biomarkers of mortality risk: systematic review of cohort studies.

Authors:  Evelyn Barron; Jose Lara; Martin White; John C Mathers
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  A proposed panel of biomarkers of healthy ageing.

Authors:  Jose Lara; Rachel Cooper; Jack Nissan; Annie T Ginty; Kay-Tee Khaw; Ian J Deary; Janet M Lord; Diana Kuh; John C Mathers
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 8.775

8.  Validation and reliability testing of a new, fully integrated gait analysis insole.

Authors:  Benedikt Johannes Braun; Nils Thomas Veith; Rebecca Hell; Stefan Döbele; Michael Roland; Mika Rollmann; Jörg Holstein; Tim Pohlemann
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2015-09-22       Impact factor: 2.303

9.  The epigenetic clock is correlated with physical and cognitive fitness in the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936.

Authors:  Riccardo E Marioni; Sonia Shah; Allan F McRae; Stuart J Ritchie; Graciela Muniz-Terrera; Sarah E Harris; Jude Gibson; Paul Redmond; Simon R Cox; Alison Pattie; Janie Corley; Adele Taylor; Lee Murphy; John M Starr; Steve Horvath; Peter M Visscher; Naomi R Wray; Ian J Deary
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2015-01-22       Impact factor: 7.196

10.  Predicting the probability of death using proteomics.

Authors:  Thjodbjorg Eiriksdottir; Steinthor Ardal; Benedikt A Jonsson; Sigrun H Lund; Erna V Ivarsdottir; Kristjan Norland; Egil Ferkingstad; Hreinn Stefansson; Ingileif Jonsdottir; Hilma Holm; Thorunn Rafnar; Jona Saemundsdottir; Gudmundur L Norddahl; Gudmundur Thorgeirsson; Daniel F Gudbjartsson; Patrick Sulem; Unnur Thorsteinsdottir; Kari Stefansson; Magnus O Ulfarsson
Journal:  Commun Biol       Date:  2021-06-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.