M Okura1, M Ogita, H Arai. 1. Mika Okura, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Kyoto Japan, okura.mika.2e@kyoto-u.ac.jp.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The present study examined whether the combination of self-reported mobility decline (SR-MD) and cognitive decline (SR-CD) was associated with mortality and new long-term care insurance (LTCI) service certifications based on sex and age. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed cohort data from a sample of older adult residents in Kami Town, Japan. The response rate was 94.3%, and we followed 5,094 older adults for 3 years. Full analyses were conducted on 5,076 participants. MEASURES: A total of four groups were determined through self-reported responses on the Kihon Checklist for SR-MD (a score of 3 or more on 5 items) and SR-CD (a score of 1 or more on 3 items): non-SR-cognitive frailty, non-SR-MD and SR-CD, SR-MD and non-SR-CD, and SR-cognitive frailty. RESULTS: Main outcomes included mortality (n = 262) or new certifications for LTCI services (n = 708) during the 3-year period. Excluding overlapping, this included 845 older adults (16.6%). Among men, prevalence of non-SR-cognitive frailty, non-SR-MD and SR-CD, SR-MD and non-SR-CD, and SR-cognitive frailty (SR-MD and SR-CD) was 48.2%, 26.4%, 11.5%, and 13.8%, respectively. Respective rates for women were 45.7%, 15.5%, 23.1%, and 15.7%. Multivariate analyses revealed that for men, SR-MD and non-SR-CD significantly affected adverse health outcomes, leading to earlier negative outcomes relative to the non-SR-MD and SR-CD group. For women, non-SR-MD and SR-CD and SR-MD and non-SR-CD had similar slopes. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of SR-MD or SR-CD on adverse health outcomes differed as a function of age and sex. Thus, we need to consider preventive approaches according to these specific target group features.
OBJECTIVES: The present study examined whether the combination of self-reported mobility decline (SR-MD) and cognitive decline (SR-CD) was associated with mortality and new long-term care insurance (LTCI) service certifications based on sex and age. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed cohort data from a sample of older adult residents in Kami Town, Japan. The response rate was 94.3%, and we followed 5,094 older adults for 3 years. Full analyses were conducted on 5,076 participants. MEASURES: A total of four groups were determined through self-reported responses on the Kihon Checklist for SR-MD (a score of 3 or more on 5 items) and SR-CD (a score of 1 or more on 3 items): non-SR-cognitive frailty, non-SR-MD and SR-CD, SR-MD and non-SR-CD, and SR-cognitive frailty. RESULTS: Main outcomes included mortality (n = 262) or new certifications for LTCI services (n = 708) during the 3-year period. Excluding overlapping, this included 845 older adults (16.6%). Among men, prevalence of non-SR-cognitive frailty, non-SR-MD and SR-CD, SR-MD and non-SR-CD, and SR-cognitive frailty (SR-MD and SR-CD) was 48.2%, 26.4%, 11.5%, and 13.8%, respectively. Respective rates for women were 45.7%, 15.5%, 23.1%, and 15.7%. Multivariate analyses revealed that for men, SR-MD and non-SR-CD significantly affected adverse health outcomes, leading to earlier negative outcomes relative to the non-SR-MD and SR-CD group. For women, non-SR-MD and SR-CD and SR-MD and non-SR-CD had similar slopes. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of SR-MD or SR-CD on adverse health outcomes differed as a function of age and sex. Thus, we need to consider preventive approaches according to these specific target group features.
Authors: Daniel H J Davis; Michael R H Rockwood; Arnold B Mitnitski; Kenneth Rockwood Journal: Arch Gerontol Geriatr Date: 2010-08-01 Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: G Abellan van Kan; Y Rolland; S Andrieu; J Bauer; O Beauchet; M Bonnefoy; M Cesari; L M Donini; S Gillette Guyonnet; M Inzitari; F Nourhashemi; G Onder; P Ritz; A Salva; M Visser; B Vellas Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Beth E Snitz; Frederick W Unverzagt; Chung-Chou H Chang; Joni Vander Bilt; Sujuan Gao; Judith Saxton; Kathleen S Hall; Mary Ganguli Journal: Int Psychogeriatr Date: 2009-07-09 Impact factor: 3.878
Authors: Rachel A Nakash; Jane L Hutton; Ellen C Jørstad-Stein; Simon Gates; Sarah E Lamb Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2006-02-23 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Xingtao Zhou; Brent J Small; Jaeil Ahn; Wanting Zhai; Tim Ahles; Martine Extermann; Deena Graham; Paul B Jacobsen; Heather Jim; Brenna C McDonald; Sunita J Patel; James C Root; Andrew J Saykin; Harvey Jay Cohen; Judith E Carroll Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Diego A Vargas-Torres-Young; Leslie Salazar-Talla; Sofia Cuba-Ruiz; Diego Urrunaga-Pastor; Fernando M Runzer-Colmenares; Jose F Parodi Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-06-22