| Literature DB >> 24516565 |
Sofi Fristedt1, Anna K Dahl2, Anders Wretstrand3, Anita Björklund1, Torbjörn Falkmer4.
Abstract
Community mobility, defined as "moving [ones] self in the community and using public or private transportation", has a unique ability to promote older peoples' wellbeing by enabling independence and access to activity arenas for interaction with others. Early predictors of decreased community mobility among older men and women are useful in developing health promoting strategies. However, long-term prediction is rare, especially when it comes to including both public and private transportation. The present study describes factors associated with community mobility and decreased community mobility over time among older men and women. In total, 119 men and 147 women responded to a questionnaire in 1994 and 2007. Respondents were between 82 and 96 years old at follow-up. After 13 years, 40% of men and 43% of women had decreased community mobility, but 47% of men and 45% of women still experienced some independent community mobility. Cross-sectional independent community mobility among men was associated with higher ratings of subjective health, reporting no depression and more involvement in sport activities. Among women, cross-sectional independent community mobility was associated with better subjective health and doing more instrumental activities of daily living outside the home. Lower subjective health predicted decreased community mobility for both men and women, whereas self-reported health conditions did not. Consequently, general policies and individual interventions aiming to improve community mobility should consider older persons' subjective health.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24516565 PMCID: PMC3917836 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087827
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Data and analyses in the present study.
(IV = Independent variables, DV = dependent variable, CM = Community mobility) 1 Only twin pairs in which both twins had returned their questionnaires were included at Q1; in total 1843 were returned (54% response rate).
Characteristics of the sample at baseline in 1994 (Q1) and follow-up in 2007 (Q2).
| Q1 | Q2 | Prospective change Q1–Q2 z | Gender difference Q1/Q2 χ2/z | ||
| Median/IQR | Median/IQR | ||||
| Age | Men | 72/4 | 85/4 | 8.54*** | 1.48/1.29 |
| Women | 72/4 | 85/4 | 9.75*** | ||
| Marital status 1–2 | Men | 1 | 1 | 3.36** | 8.79**/17.97*** |
| Women | 1 | 2 | 5.30*** | ||
| Educational level 1–6 | Men | 3/1 | 3/2 | / | 2.10*/2.36* |
| Women | 2/1 | 2/1 | / | ||
| Subjective economy 1–3 | Men | 1/1 | 1/1 | 0.92 | 1.72/0.39 |
| Women | 1/1 | 1/1 | −2.07* | ||
| Cerebrovascular | Men | 0/0 | 0/1 | 4.16*** | −1.67/−1.87 |
| conditions 0–4 | Women | 0/0 | 0/1 | 4.35*** | |
| Eye conditions 0–3 | Men | 0/0 | 0/1 | 3.87*** | 1.29/3.95*** |
| Women | 0/0 | 1/1 | 6.07*** | ||
| Musculo-skeletal | Men | 0/1 | 0/1 | 0.19 | −0.38/2.62** |
| conditions 0–6 | Women | 0/1 | 1/1 | 2.54* | |
| Subjective health 1–3 | Men | 1/1 | 2/1 | 3.43*** | 0.33/−0.26 |
| Women | 1/1 | 2/1 | 3.33*** | ||
| CES-D 1–2 | Men | 1 | 1 | 0.47 | 3.92*/0.99 |
| Women | 1 | 1 | −0.90 | ||
| Social network 1–4 | Men | 3/1 | 3/1 | −2.27* | −0.98/−0.22 |
| Women | 3/1 | 3/1 | −1.82 | ||
| Sport activities 1–2 | Men | 2 | 2 | −1.71 | 0.23/0.89 |
| Women | 2 | 2 | −0.56 | ||
| Community | Men | 12/4 | 13/4 | 2.35* | −0.91/−0.57 |
| activities 1–15 | Women | 12/5 | 13/4.5 | 3.75*** | |
| I-ADL outside home 1–5 | Men | 2/0 | 2/1 | 2.56* | −0.16/1.28 |
| Women | 2/0 | 2/1 | 4.37*** |
All covariates, except educational level, were coded so that lower values indicated a more positive outcome. Minus signs indicate a better outcome at Q2 with respect to prospective change and a better outcome for women with respect to gender differences.
Notes: *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.
Men = 100, women = 113.
Men = 95, women = 125.
Interquartile range (i.e., the difference between Q3–Q1) calculated for variables with more than two values.
Analysed using Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test.
Dichotomous variables analysed using Pearson’s χ2. All other variables analysed using Mann-Whitney U-test.
Figure 2Distribution main mode of transport two years before follow-up and at follow-up (Q2).
Gender differences with respect to driving a car compared to other modes of transport and use of public transport (PT) and Special transport system (STS) compared with other modes of transport.
| Men | Women | |
| 2 years before Q2/at the time of Q2 | 2 years before Q2/at the time of Q2 | |
| Driving a car | n = 71 (60%)/n = 60 (50%) | n = 20 (14%)/n = 10 (7%) |
| Other modes of transport | n = 48 (40%)/n = 59 (50%) | n = 127 (86%)/n = 137 (93%) |
| PT/STS | n = 15 (13%)/n = 22 (19%) | n = 53 (36%)/n = 66 (45%) |
| Other modes of transport | n = 104 (87%)/n = 97 (81%) | n = 94(64%)/n = 81 (55%) |
Figure 3Ability to transport beyond walking distance relative to main mode of transport at follow-up (Q2).
Factors associated with CM in Q2 and decreased CM from Q1 to Q2.
| CM Q2 | Decreased CM from Q1 to Q2 | ||||
| B | ORe(95% CIf) | B | ORe(95% CIf) | ||
| Men | Subjective health | −1.16 (0.61) | 0.20** (0.06–0.66) | 1.11 (0.47) | 3.03 |
| Age | −0.19 (0.11) | 0.83 (0.67–1.01) | 0.15 (0.08) | 1.16 (0.98–1.36) | |
| CES-D | −1.75 (0.74) | 0.17 | – | – | |
| Social network | −0.37 (0.40) | 0.69 (0.31–1.53) | – | – | |
| I-ADL outside home | −0.23 (0.23) | 0.80 (0.51–1.24) | 0.54 (0.33) | 0.10 (0.90−3.23) | |
| Sport activities | −1.31 (0.64) | 0.27 | – | – | |
| Women | Subjective health | −0.97 (0.48) | 0.38 | 1.01 (0.07) | 2.73** (1.19–6.26) |
| Age | −0.08 (0.08) | 0.92 (0.79–1.07) | 0.25 (0.07) | 1.29 | |
| CES-D | −0.18 (0.53) | 0.84 (0.30–2.36) | – | – | |
| Social network | 0.54 (0.29) | 1.72 (0.98–3.02) | – | – | |
| I-ADL outside home | −0.71 (0.20) | 0.49*** (0.34–0.73) | 0.37 (0.33) | 1.45 (0.76–2.76) | |
| Sport activities | −0.27 (0.53) | 0.76 (0.27–2.16) | |||
Notes:
Men (n = 95): Pseudo-R2 = 0.33 (Cox & Snell), 0.45 (Nagelkerke) Women (n = 125): Pseudo-R2 = 0.26 (Cox & Snell), 0.34 (Nagelkerke).
Predicts CM correctly for 80% of the men and 76% of the women.
Men (n = 100): Pseudo-R2 = 0.12 (Cox & Snell), 0.17 (Nagelkerke) Women (n = 113): Pseudo-R2 = 0.19 (Cox & Snell), 0.25 (Nagelkerke).
Predicts CM change correctly for 68% of the men and 72% of the women.
B = regression coefficient, d SE = standard error, e OR = odds ratio, f CI = confidence interval.
*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.