Catharine R Gale1, Cyrus Cooper. 1. MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older people with more negative attitudes to ageing are at increased risk of several adverse outcomes, including decline in physical function and increased difficulties with activities of daily living. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether negative attitudes to ageing increase the risk of the onset or progression of frailty. METHOD: Participants were 3,505 men and women aged 60 years and over from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. They completed a 12-item questionnaire on attitudes to ageing. Exploratory factor analysis was used to examine the structure of these items, and a single factor was derived which we labelled "physical and psychological loss." Frailty was assessed by the Fried phenotype of physical frailty at waves 2 and 4, and by a frailty index at waves 2-5. RESULTS: Having a more positive attitude to ageing as regards "physical and psychological loss" was associated with a decreased risk of becoming physically frail or pre-frail at follow-up. For a standard deviation increment in score, the relative risk ratios (95% confidence interval), adjusted for age, sex and baseline level of physical frailty, were 0.86 (0.79, 0.94) for pre-frailty and 0.72 (0.63, 0.83) for frailty. Further adjustment for other potential confounding variables had only slight attenuating effects on these associations: multivariable-adjusted relative risk ratios were 0.89 (0.81, 0.98) for pre-frailty and 0.78 (0.68, 0.91) for frailty. Attitude to ageing was not associated with change in the frailty index over time after adjustment for potential confounding variables. CONCLUSION: Older people who have a more positive attitude to ageing are at reduced risk of becoming physically frail or pre-frail. Future research needs to replicate this finding and discover the underlying mechanisms. Attitude to ageing was not a risk factor for change in the more broadly defined frailty index.
BACKGROUND: Older people with more negative attitudes to ageing are at increased risk of several adverse outcomes, including decline in physical function and increased difficulties with activities of daily living. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether negative attitudes to ageing increase the risk of the onset or progression of frailty. METHOD: Participants were 3,505 men and women aged 60 years and over from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. They completed a 12-item questionnaire on attitudes to ageing. Exploratory factor analysis was used to examine the structure of these items, and a single factor was derived which we labelled "physical and psychological loss." Frailty was assessed by the Fried phenotype of physical frailty at waves 2 and 4, and by a frailty index at waves 2-5. RESULTS: Having a more positive attitude to ageing as regards "physical and psychological loss" was associated with a decreased risk of becoming physically frail or pre-frail at follow-up. For a standard deviation increment in score, the relative risk ratios (95% confidence interval), adjusted for age, sex and baseline level of physical frailty, were 0.86 (0.79, 0.94) for pre-frailty and 0.72 (0.63, 0.83) for frailty. Further adjustment for other potential confounding variables had only slight attenuating effects on these associations: multivariable-adjusted relative risk ratios were 0.89 (0.81, 0.98) for pre-frailty and 0.78 (0.68, 0.91) for frailty. Attitude to ageing was not associated with change in the frailty index over time after adjustment for potential confounding variables. CONCLUSION: Older people who have a more positive attitude to ageing are at reduced risk of becoming physically frail or pre-frail. Future research needs to replicate this finding and discover the underlying mechanisms. Attitude to ageing was not a risk factor for change in the more broadly defined frailty index.
Authors: Salla L Savela; Pentti Koistinen; Sari Stenholm; Reijo S Tilvis; Arto Y Strandberg; Kaisu H Pitkälä; Veikko V Salomaa; Timo E Strandberg Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2013-03-22 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: L P Fried; C M Tangen; J Walston; A B Newman; C Hirsch; J Gottdiener; T Seeman; R Tracy; W J Kop; G Burke; M A McBurnie Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: John E Morley; Bruno Vellas; G Abellan van Kan; Stefan D Anker; Juergen M Bauer; Roberto Bernabei; Matteo Cesari; W C Chumlea; Wolfram Doehner; Jonathan Evans; Linda P Fried; Jack M Guralnik; Paul R Katz; Theodore K Malmstrom; Roger J McCarter; Luis M Gutierrez Robledo; Ken Rockwood; Stephan von Haehling; Maurits F Vandewoude; Jeremy Walston Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Catharine R Gale; Riccardo E Marioni; Sarah E Harris; John M Starr; Ian J Deary Journal: Clin Epigenetics Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 6.551
Authors: Maria Magdalena Bujnowska-Fedak; Holly Gwyther; Katarzyna Szwamel; Barbara D'Avanzo; Carol Holland; Rachel L Shaw; Donata Kurpas Journal: Eur J Gen Pract Date: 2019-10-07 Impact factor: 1.904
Authors: Shu-Hsin Lee; Chih-Jung Yeh; Cheng-Yu Yang; Ching-Yi Wang; Meng-Chih Lee Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 3.390