Raildo da Silva Coqueiro1,2, Bruno M de Queiroz3, Daniela S Oliveira4, Magno C das Merces4, José A Oliveira Carneiro5,3, Rafael Pereira6, Marcos H Fernandes5,3. 1. Department of Health, State University of Southwestern Bahia (UESB), Jequié, Brazil - rscoqueiro@uesb.edu.br. 2. Center for Studies in the Epidemiology of Aging, State University of Southwestern Bahia (NEPE - UESB), Jequie, Brazil - rscoqueiro@uesb.edu.br. 3. Center for Studies in the Epidemiology of Aging, State University of Southwestern Bahia (NEPE - UESB), Jequie, Brazil. 4. Department of Education, State University of Bahia (UNEB), Guanambi, Brazil. 5. Department of Health, State University of Southwestern Bahia (UESB), Jequié, Brazil. 6. Department of Biological Sciences, State University of Southwestern Bahia (UESB), Jequié, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyze the association between frailty and sedentary behavior and to examine the discriminative ability of sedentary behavior in screening frailty in older adults. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study based on data from an epidemiologic population-based household survey involving 316 community-dwelling older adults (≥60 years) of both sexes (173 women and 143 men). The frailty was measured from an adapted version of the criteria proposed by Fried et al. in 2001, which is based on the presence of three or more of the following components: shrinking, weakness, poor endurance/exhaustion, slowness and low activity. Sedentary behavior was determined by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (long version). RESULTS: The prevalence of frailty was 23.8%, and the average time in sedentary behavior was 6.1±3.2 h/day. Sedentary behavior was independently and positively associated with frailty (PR=1.10; 95% CI: 1.02-1.19; P=0.013). The ROC curve showed that the sedentary behavior could discriminate frail older adults (AUC=0.66; 95% CI: 0.61-0.72), and the best cutoff point was 7 h/day (sensitivity =54% and specificity =75%). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty is strongly associated with sedentary behavior. Sedentary behavior can be a potential marker in screening of frailty in community-dwelling older adults. Our findings suggest that reducing the time with sedentary behavior and increasing the time with physical activity may prevent frailty syndrome.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyze the association between frailty and sedentary behavior and to examine the discriminative ability of sedentary behavior in screening frailty in older adults. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study based on data from an epidemiologic population-based household survey involving 316 community-dwelling older adults (≥60 years) of both sexes (173 women and 143 men). The frailty was measured from an adapted version of the criteria proposed by Fried et al. in 2001, which is based on the presence of three or more of the following components: shrinking, weakness, poor endurance/exhaustion, slowness and low activity. Sedentary behavior was determined by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (long version). RESULTS: The prevalence of frailty was 23.8%, and the average time in sedentary behavior was 6.1±3.2 h/day. Sedentary behavior was independently and positively associated with frailty (PR=1.10; 95% CI: 1.02-1.19; P=0.013). The ROC curve showed that the sedentary behavior could discriminate frail older adults (AUC=0.66; 95% CI: 0.61-0.72), and the best cutoff point was 7 h/day (sensitivity =54% and specificity =75%). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty is strongly associated with sedentary behavior. Sedentary behavior can be a potential marker in screening of frailty in community-dwelling older adults. Our findings suggest that reducing the time with sedentary behavior and increasing the time with physical activity may prevent frailty syndrome.
Authors: Samah Hayek; Todd M Gibson; Wendy M Leisenring; Jennifer L Guida; Maria Monica Gramatges; Philip J Lupo; Rebecca M Howell; Kevin C Oeffinger; Smita Bhatia; Kim Edelstein; Melissa M Hudson; Leslie L Robison; Paul C Nathan; Yutaka Yasui; Kevin R Krull; Gregory T Armstrong; Kirsten K Ness Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nada Almohaisen; Matthew Gittins; Chris Todd; Jana Sremanakova; Anne Marie Sowerbutts; Amal Aldossari; Asrar Almutairi; Debra Jones; Sorrel Burden Journal: Nutrients Date: 2022-04-07 Impact factor: 6.706
Authors: Jair S Virtuoso Júnior; Liliane B Roza; Sheilla Tribess; Joilson Meneguci; Edmar L Mendes; Maycon S Pegorari; Flávia A Dias; Darlene M Dos Santos Tavares; Jeffer E Sasaki Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2017-07-31 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Venicius Dantas da Silva; Sheilla Tribess; Joilson Meneguci; Jeffer Eidi Sasaki; Douglas de Assis Teles Santos; José Ailton Oliveira Carneiro; Jair Sindra Virtuoso Júnior Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Lisa M Roberts; Byron C Jaeger; Liliana C Baptista; Sara A Harper; Anna K Gardner; Elizabeth A Jackson; Dorothy Pekmezi; Bhanuprasad Sandesara; Todd M Manini; Stephen D Anton; Thomas W Buford Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 4.458
Authors: Irene Rodríguez-Gómez; Asier Mañas; José Losa-Reyna; Luis M Alegre; Leocadio Rodríguez-Mañas; Francisco J García-García; Ignacio Ara Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-29 Impact factor: 3.390