| Literature DB >> 24174926 |
Shu Nishiguchi1, Minoru Yamada, Takuya Sonoda, Hiroki Kayama, Takanori Tanigawa, Taiki Yukutake, Tomoki Aoyama.
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of this prospective cohort study is to examine whether cognitive decline is an independent predictor of new long-term care insurance (LTCI) requirement certifications in Japan.Entities:
Keywords: Cognitive decline; Long-term care insurance requirement; Older Japanese adults; Prospective cohort study
Year: 2013 PMID: 24174926 PMCID: PMC3808217 DOI: 10.1159/000354962
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra ISSN: 1664-5464
Baseline demographic differences in the LTCI service requirement certification during the 18-month follow-up
| LTCI requirement certification (n = 399) | No LTCI requirement certification (n = 5,366) | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 80.7 ± 6.9 | 74.2 ± 6.6 | <0.001 |
| Female gender | 237 (59.4) | 2,829 (52.7) | 0.011* |
| BMI | 22.2 ± 3.5 | 22.7 ± 3.1 | 0.012 |
| CPS score | <0.001 | ||
| 0 | 232 (58.1) | 4,091 (76.2) | |
| 1 | 89 (22.3) | 942 (17.6) | |
| 2 or greater | 78 (19.5) | 333 (6.2) | |
| Number of medications takenb | <0.001 | ||
| 0 | 41 (10.3) | 1,021 (19.0) | |
| 1 | 35 (8.8) | 809 (15.1) | |
| 2 | 59 (14.8) | 943 (17.6) | |
| 3 or more | 264 (66.2) | 2,593 (48.3) | |
| Family structureb | <0.001 | ||
| Single | 70 (17.5) | 491 (9.2) | |
| Elderly household | 73 (18.3) | 1,521 (28.3) | |
| Other | 256 (64.2) | 3,354 (62.5) | |
| Subjective household economic statusb | 0.475 | ||
| Very good | 22 (5.5) | 218 (4.1) | |
| Good | 141 (35.3) | 2,022 (37.7) | |
| Fair | 167 (41.9) | 2,228 (41.5) | |
| Bad | 69 (17.3) | 898 (16.7) | |
| Medical historyb | |||
| Musculoskeletal disorder | 88 (22.1) | 685 (12.8) | <0.001 |
| Hypertension | 170 (42.6) | 2,452 (45.7) | 0.252 |
| Lipid disorder | 22 (5.5) | 429 (8.0) | 0.082 |
| Stroke | 25 (6.3) | 202 (3.8) | 0.022 |
| Diabetes | 40 (10.0) | 650 (12.1) | 0.231 |
| Heart disease | 80 (20.1) | 702 (13.1) | <0.001 |
| Respiratory disease | 37 (9.3) | 251 (4.7) | <0.001 |
| External injury | 18 (4.5) | 158 (2.9) | 0.095 |
| Cancer | 25 (6.3) | 207 (3.9) | 0.024 |
Values are mean ± SD or n (%).
p < 0.05;
p < 0.01.
Assessed by Student's t test.
Assessed by χ2 test.
Baseline demographic differences according to CPS scores
| CPS score | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 (n = 4,323) | 1 (n = 1,031) | 2 or greater (n = 411) | p value for trend | post hoc test | |
| Age, years | 74.1 ± 6.6 | 75.3 ± 7.1 | 77.9 ± 7.3 | <0.001 | |
| Female gender | 2,374 (54.9) | 501 (48.6) | 191 (43.3) | <0.001 | |
| BMI | 22.7 ± 3.1 | 22.4 ± 3.2 | 22.2 ± 3.3 | 0.001 | |
| Medications | <0.001 | ||||
| 0 | 853 (19.7) | 154 (14.9) | 55 (12.5) | ||
| 1 | 675 (15.6) | 141 (13.7) | 28 (6.3) | ||
| 2 | 792 (18.3) | 156 (15.1) | 54 (12.2) | ||
| 3 or more | 2,003 (46.3) | 580 (56.3) | 274 (62.1) | ||
| Family structure | 0.016 | ||||
| Single | 401 (9.3) | 104 (10.1) | 56 (12.7) | ||
| Elderly household | 1,216 (28.1) | 298 (28.9) | 80 (18.1) | ||
| Other | 2,706 (62.6) | 629 (61.0) | 275 (66.9) | ||
| Subjective household economic status | <0.001 | ||||
| Very good | 664 (15.4) | 190 (18.4) | 113 (25.6) | ||
| Good | 1,765 (40.8) | 460 (44.6) | 170 (38.5) | ||
| Fair | 1,701 (39.3) | 341 (33.1) | 121 (27.4) | ||
| Bad | 193 (4.5) | 40 (3.9) | 7 (1.6) | ||
| Medical history | |||||
| Musculoskeletal disorder | 571 (13.2) | 140 (13.6) | 62 (14.1) | 0.557 | |
| Hypertension | 1,949 (45.1) | 489 (47.4) | 184 (41.7) | 0.380 | |
| Lipid disorder | 358 (8.3) | 63 (6.1) | 30 (6.8) | 0.061 | |
| Stroke | 138 (3.2) | 43 (4.2) | 46 (10.4) | <0.001 | |
| Diabetes | 504 (11.7) | 133 (12.9) | 53 (12.0) | 0.454 | |
| Heart disease | 538 (12.4) | 169 (16.4) | 75 (17.0) | <0.001 | |
| Respiratory disease | 183 (4.2) | 63 (6.1) | 42 (9.5) | <0.001 | |
| External injury | 109 (2.5) | 43 (4.2) | 24 (5.4) | <0.001 | |
| Cancer | 151 (3.5) | 56 (5.4) | 25 (5.7) | 0.002 | |
Values are mean ± SD or n (%).
p < 0.05;
p < 0.01. CPS score: 0 (normal), 1 (borderline intact), 2–6 (cognitive impairment).
Assessed by ANOVA.
Assessed by χ2 test.
Significant difference between a CPS score of 0 and a CPS score of 1.
Significant difference between a CPS score of 1 and a CPS score of 2 or greater.
Significant difference between a CPS score of 0 and a CPS score of 2 or greater.
Fig. 1Kaplan-Meier survival curves illustrating the percentage of subjects who were not certified for LTCI services. During the study period, 232 (5.4%), 89 (8.6%), and 78 (19.0%) subjects with CPS scores of 0, 1, and 2 or greater, respectively, became newly certified for LTCI services.
Cox proportional hazards model for the impact of cognitive decline on the time of receiving an LTCI requirement certification
| CPS score | Univariate model | Multivariate model | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | p | HR (95% CI) | p | |
| 0 | 1 (ref.) | − | 1 (ref.) | − |
| 1 | 1.64 (1.28–2.09) | <0.001 | 1.39 (1.08–1.77) | 0.009 |
| 2–6 | 3.85 (2.98–4.98) | <0.001 | 2.27 (1.74–2.96) | <0.001 |
CPS score: 0 (normal), 1 (borderline intact), 2–6 (cognitive impairment). The multivariate model was adjusted for age, gender, BMI, number of medications taken, family structure, subjective household economy, and past medical history.