Leslie Vaughan1, Xiaoyan Leng2, Michael J La Monte3, Hilary A Tindle4, Barbara B Cochrane5, Sally A Shumaker6. 1. Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy and alvaugha@wakehealth.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistical Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Environmental Health, School of Public Health and Health Professions, University at Buffalo - SUNY, New York. 4. Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University. 5. Department of Family and Child Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle. 6. Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy and.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We examined physical functioning (PF) trajectories (maintaining, slowly declining, and rapidly declining) spanning 15 years in older women aged 65-80 and protective factors that predicted better current levels and less decline in functional independence outcomes after age 80. METHODS: Women's Health Initiative extension participants who met criteria (enrolled in either the clinical trial or observational study cohort, >80 years at the data release cutoff, PF survey data from initial enrollment to age 80, and functional independence survey data after age 80) were included in these analyses (mean [SD] age = 84.0 [1.4] years; N = 10,478). PF was measured with the SF-36 (mean = 4.9 occasions). Functional independence was measured by self-reported level of dependence in basic and instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs and IADLs) (mean = 3.4 and 3.3 occasions). RESULTS: Maintaining consistent PF in older adulthood extends functional independence in ADL and IADL in late-life. Protective factors shared by ADL and IADL include maintaining PF over time, self-reported excellent or very good health, no history of hip fracture after age 55, and no history of cardiovascular disease. Better IADL function is uniquely predicted by a body mass index less than 25 and no depression. Less ADL and IADL decline is predicted by better self-reported health, and less IADL decline is uniquely predicted by having no history of hip fracture after age 55. CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining or improving PF and preventing injury and disease in older adulthood (ages 65-80) has far-reaching implications for improving late-life (after age 80) functional independence.
BACKGROUND: We examined physical functioning (PF) trajectories (maintaining, slowly declining, and rapidly declining) spanning 15 years in older women aged 65-80 and protective factors that predicted better current levels and less decline in functional independence outcomes after age 80. METHODS:Women's Health Initiative extension participants who met criteria (enrolled in either the clinical trial or observational study cohort, >80 years at the data release cutoff, PF survey data from initial enrollment to age 80, and functional independence survey data after age 80) were included in these analyses (mean [SD] age = 84.0 [1.4] years; N = 10,478). PF was measured with the SF-36 (mean = 4.9 occasions). Functional independence was measured by self-reported level of dependence in basic and instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs and IADLs) (mean = 3.4 and 3.3 occasions). RESULTS: Maintaining consistent PF in older adulthood extends functional independence in ADL and IADL in late-life. Protective factors shared by ADL and IADL include maintaining PF over time, self-reported excellent or very good health, no history of hip fracture after age 55, and no history of cardiovascular disease. Better IADL function is uniquely predicted by a body mass index less than 25 and no depression. Less ADL and IADL decline is predicted by better self-reported health, and less IADL decline is uniquely predicted by having no history of hip fracture after age 55. CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining or improving PF and preventing injury and disease in older adulthood (ages 65-80) has far-reaching implications for improving late-life (after age 80) functional independence.
Authors: Laura N Gitlin; Laraine Winter; Marie P Dennis; Mary Corcoran; Sandy Schinfeld; Walter W Hauck Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Hal H Atkinson; Stephen R Rapp; Jeff D Williamson; James Lovato; John R Absher; Margery Gass; Victor W Henderson; Karen C Johnson; John B Kostis; Kaycee M Sink; Charles P Mouton; Judith K Ockene; Marcia L Stefanick; Dorothy S Lane; Mark A Espeland Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2009-09-29 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Patrick J Knox; Ryan T Pohlig; Jenifer M Pugliese; Peter C Coyle; Jaclyn M Sions; Gregory E Hicks Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2021-09-20 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Carmen B Franse; Amy van Grieken; Li Qin; René J F Melis; Judith A C Rietjens; Hein Raat Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: A Zarina Kraal; Lauren Massimo; Evan Fletcher; Carmen I Carrión; Luis D Medina; Dan Mungas; Brandon E Gavett; Sarah Tomazewski Farias Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 3.295