| Literature DB >> 26406326 |
Kimiko Tomioka1, Norio Kurumatani1, Hiroshi Hosoi1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We examined the association between a decline in effectance and social participation (SP) from the perspective of the number and the type of SP in a prospective cohort study.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26406326 PMCID: PMC4583439 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139065
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Flow diagram of the enrollment of study participants.
ADL = activities of daily living.
Basic attributes of subjects with or without valid response for baseline and follow-up data.
| Basic attributes at baseline | Baseline data | P-value | Follow-up data | P-value | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Valid response | Invalid response | Valid response | Invalid response | |||||||
| (n = 8,701) | (n = 421) | (n = 4,588) | (n = 1,359) | |||||||
| 75 years of age and older | 3630 | (41.7) | 258 | (61.3) | < 0.001 | 1542 | (33.6) | 598 | (44.0) | < 0.001 |
| Male | 4010 | (46.1) | 188 | (44.7) | 0.582 | 2124 | (46.3) | 693 | (51.0) | 0.002 |
| Subjects with partial dependency in their activities of daily living | 839 | (9.6) | 69 | (16.4) | < 0.001 | 119 | (2.6) | 80 | (5.9) | < 0.001 |
Data are given as n (%).
a Subjects with invalid response for effectance and social participation.
b Differences between subjects with or without valid response were analyzed using Fisher's exact test.
c Subjects who did not participate the follow-up survey or were invalid response for effectance at follow-up.
d Subjects who were certified as support levels 1–2 or care levels 1–2 by public long-term care insurance system.
The Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology Index of Competence (TMIG-IC) for assessing higher-level functional capacity in older adults.
| Sub-scales | Questionnaires | |
|---|---|---|
| Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) | ||
| 1 Can you use public transportation (bus or train) by yourself? | 1. Yes | 0. No |
| 2 Are you able to shop for daily necessities? | 1. Yes | 0. No |
| 3 Are you able to prepare meals by yourself? | 1. Yes | 0. No |
| 4 Are you able to pay bills? | 1. Yes | 0. No |
| 5 Can you handle your own banking? | 1. Yes | 0. No |
| Effectance | ||
| 6 Are you able to fill out forms for your pension? | 1. Yes | 0. No |
| 7 Do you read newspapers? | 1. Yes | 0. No |
| 8 Do you read books or magazines? | 1. Yes | 0. No |
| 9 Are you interested in news stories or programs dealing with health? | 1. Yes | 0. No |
| Social Role | ||
| 10 Do you visit the homes of friends? | 1. Yes | 0. No |
| 11 Are you sometimes called on for advice? | 1. Yes | 0. No |
| 12 Are you able to visit sick friends? | 1. Yes | 0. No |
| 13 Do you sometimes initiate conversations with young people? | 1. Yes | 0. No |
Characteristics of study participants at baseline stratified according to the decline in effectance during the 3-year follow-up
| Baseline Characteristic | Non-decline group | Decline group | P-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 3,771) | (n = 817) | ||||
| Socio-demographic | |||||
| Age: 75 years and older | 1,164 | (30.9) | 378 | (46.3) | <0.001 |
| Gender: Male | 1,736 | (46.0) | 388 | (47.5) | 0.462 |
| Family structure: living alone | 348 | (9.2) | 84 | (10.3) | 0.355 |
| Body mass index: normal | 2,804 | (74.4) | 610 | (74.7) | 0.825 |
| Pension: national pension | 1,304 | (34.6) | 314 | (38.4) | 0.039 |
| The number of chronic medical conditions | |||||
| Two or greater | 1,051 | (27.9) | 279 | (34.1) | 0.001 |
| The number of medications used | |||||
| More than 5 | 648 | (17.2) | 203 | (24.8) | <0.001 |
| Behavioral factors | |||||
| Alcohol intake: daily drinker | 968 | (25.7) | 192 | (23.5) | 0.214 |
| Smoking history: current smoker | 300 | (8.0) | 72 | (8.8) | 0.437 |
| Psychosocial factors | |||||
| Poor cognitive function: CPS ≥1 | 376 | (10.0) | 173 | (21.2) | <0.001 |
| Depression: GDS ≥2 | 566 | (15.0) | 221 | (27.1) | <0.001 |
| No social support | 264 | (7.0) | 108 | (13.2) | <0.001 |
| Physiological factors | |||||
| Poor ADL: Barthel-index <100 | 647 | (17.2) | 208 | (25.5) | <0.001 |
| Poor IADL: TMIG-IC <5 | 210 | (5.6) | 98 | (12.0) | <0.001 |
| Social participation | |||||
| The number of social groups | |||||
| Zero | 1,234 | (32.7) | 380 | (46.5) | <0.001 |
| One | 1,183 | (31.4) | 226 | (27.7) | |
| Two | 689 | (18.3) | 125 | (15.3) | |
| Three or greater | 665 | (17.6) | 86 | (10.5) | |
| Type of social participation (subjects with participation of each group) | |||||
| Neighborhood associations | 1,351 | (35.8) | 214 | (26.2) | <0.001 |
| Hobby groups | 1,025 | (27.2) | 122 | (14.9) | <0.001 |
| Local event groups | 999 | (26.5) | 148 | (18.1) | <0.001 |
| Senior citizen clubs | 821 | (21.8) | 194 | (23.7) | 0.227 |
| Volunteer groups | 572 | (15.2) | 62 | (7.6) | <0.001 |
Data are given as n (%).
ADL, activities of daily living; CPS, Cognitive Performance Scale; GDS, Geriatric Depression Scale; IADL, instrumental activities of daily living; TMIG-IC, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology Index of Competence.
a p values were calculated using Fisher's exact test.
Odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for 3-year decline in effectance by gender.
| Males (n = 2,124) | Females (n = 2,464) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 2 | |||||||
| Crude OR & 95% CI | Adjusted OR & 95% CI | Goodness of fit | Crude OR & 95% CI | Adjusted OR & 95% CI | Goodness of fit | |||||
|
| ||||||||||
| Zero | 1.00 | 1.00 | p = 0.58 | 1.00 | 1.00 | p = 0.64 | ||||
| One | 0.62 | 0.47–0.82 | 0.68 | 0.51–0.91 | 0.62 | 0.48–0.79 | 0.69 | 0.53–0.89 | ||
| Two | 0.70 | 0.52–0.96 | 0.80 | 0.58–1.12 | 0.50 | 0.36–0.68 | 0.62 | 0.45–0.87 | ||
| Three or greater | 0.53 | 0.37–0.74 | 0.60 | 0.42–0.87 | 0.33 | 0.23–0.48 | 0.41 | 0.28–0.61 | ||
| Test for linear trend | p <0.001 | p = 0.009 | p <0.001 | p <0.001 | ||||||
|
| ||||||||||
| Neighborhood associations | 0.78 | 0.62–0.98 | 0.90 | 0.71–1.15 | p = 0.73 | 0.49 | 0.38–0.64 | 0.62 | 0.48–0.81 | p = 0.78 |
| Hobby groups | 0.51 | 0.37–0.69 | 0.59 | 0.43–0.81 | p = 0.64 | 0.45 | 0.34–0.59 | 0.58 | 0.43–0.77 | p = 0.36 |
| Local event groups | 0.74 | 0.57–0.96 | 0.82 | 0.63–1.08 | p = 0.85 | 0.49 | 0.37–0.66 | 0.63 | 0.47–0.86 | p = 0.54 |
| Senior citizen clubs | 1.06 | 0.80–1.41 | 0.91 | 0.67–1.24 | p = 0.59 | 1.17 | 0.93–1.48 | 0.88 | 0.68–1.13 | p = 0.18 |
| Volunteer groups | 0.50 | 0.35–0.72 | 0.57 | 0.39–0.83 | p = 0.66 | 0.41 | 0.27–0.62 | 0.53 | 0.35–0.82 | p = 0.58 |
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
a Goodness of fit determined by Hosmer-Lemeshow analysis.
Model 2: Adjusted for demographics (age, family structure, body mass index, and pensions), the number of comorbidities, the number of medications used, behavioral factors (alcohol and smoking), psychosocial factors (cognitive function, depression, and social support) and physiological factors (ADL and IADL).