BACKGROUND: Frailty is an important risk factor for adverse outcomes in older people. Substantial variation in frailty prevalence between socioeconomic groups exists, but longitudinal evidence for the association between socioeconomic position (SEP) and frailty is scarce. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the course of socioeconomic inequalities in frailty among older adults during 10 years of follow-up. METHODS: Data were used from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (n = 1,509). Frailty was measured with the functional domains approach, based on deficiencies in four domains: physical, nutritive, cognitive, and sensory. Mixed-model analyses were performed to estimate the course of frailty and its association with SEP during a 10-year follow-up. We investigated whether similar patterns of associations held in different scenarios, comparing results of survivor analyses with those based on two imputation methods accounting for dropout due to death (substitution of first missing value and missing values imputed with a prediction model). RESULTS: All scenarios showed a linear increase in frailty with aging (survivor analyses OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.66-2.11) and associations of low education and low income with frailty (adjusted OR for low education = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.05-2.97; adjusted OR for low income = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.20-3.01; both for survivor analyses). Sex-stratified analyses indicated that socioeconomic inequalities were mainly present in men, not in women. Similar patterns of associations of SEP with frailty were observed in all scenarios, but the increase in frailty prevalence over time differed substantially between the scenarios. There were no statistically significant interactions between time and SEP on frailty (all scenarios), suggesting that inequalities in frailty did not increase or decrease during follow-up. CONCLUSION: SEP inequalities in frailty among older adults were observed, mainly among men, and persisted during 10 years of follow-up.
BACKGROUND: Frailty is an important risk factor for adverse outcomes in older people. Substantial variation in frailty prevalence between socioeconomic groups exists, but longitudinal evidence for the association between socioeconomic position (SEP) and frailty is scarce. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the course of socioeconomic inequalities in frailty among older adults during 10 years of follow-up. METHODS: Data were used from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (n = 1,509). Frailty was measured with the functional domains approach, based on deficiencies in four domains: physical, nutritive, cognitive, and sensory. Mixed-model analyses were performed to estimate the course of frailty and its association with SEP during a 10-year follow-up. We investigated whether similar patterns of associations held in different scenarios, comparing results of survivor analyses with those based on two imputation methods accounting for dropout due to death (substitution of first missing value and missing values imputed with a prediction model). RESULTS: All scenarios showed a linear increase in frailty with aging (survivor analyses OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.66-2.11) and associations of low education and low income with frailty (adjusted OR for low education = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.05-2.97; adjusted OR for low income = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.20-3.01; both for survivor analyses). Sex-stratified analyses indicated that socioeconomic inequalities were mainly present in men, not in women. Similar patterns of associations of SEP with frailty were observed in all scenarios, but the increase in frailty prevalence over time differed substantially between the scenarios. There were no statistically significant interactions between time and SEP on frailty (all scenarios), suggesting that inequalities in frailty did not increase or decrease during follow-up. CONCLUSION: SEP inequalities in frailty among older adults were observed, mainly among men, and persisted during 10 years of follow-up.
Authors: Nadia Sourial; Howard Bergman; Sathya Karunananthan; Christina Wolfson; Jack Guralnik; Hélène Payette; Luis Gutierrez-Robledo; Dorly J H Deeg; John D Fletcher; Maria T E Puts; Bin Zhu; François Béland Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2012-03-28 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Martijn Huisman; Jan Poppelaars; Marleen van der Horst; Aartjan T F Beekman; Johannes Brug; Theo G van Tilburg; Dorly J H Deeg Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2011-01-06 Impact factor: 7.196
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: Elizabeth Breeze; Robert Clarke; Martin J Shipley; Michael G Marmot; Astrid E Fletcher Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2005-11-12 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: A Barbosa da Silva; I Queiroz de Souza; I K da Silva; M Borges Lopes Tavares da Silva; A C Oliveira Dos Santos Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2020 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Nuno Mendonça; Andrew Kingston; Mohammad Yadegarfar; Helen Hanson; Rachel Duncan; Carol Jagger; Louise Robinson Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2020-10-23 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: E O Hoogendijk; T Flores Ruano; M Martínez-Reig; M López-Utiel; S Lozoya-Moreno; E Dent; P Abizanda Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2018 Impact factor: 4.075