| Literature DB >> 31703115 |
Giovanni Sala1, Daniela Jopp2, Fernand Gobet3, Madoka Ogawa4, Yoshiko Ishioka5, Yukie Masui4, Hiroki Inagaki4, Takeshi Nakagawa6, Saori Yasumoto7, Tatsuro Ishizaki4, Yasumichi Arai8, Kazunori Ikebe9, Kei Kamide10, Yasuyuki Gondo7.
Abstract
Engagement in leisure activities has been claimed to be highly beneficial in the elderly. Practicing such activities is supposed to help older adults to preserve cognitive function, physical function, and mental health, and thus to contribute to successful aging. We used structural equation modeling (SEM) to analyze the impact of leisure activities on these constructs in a large sample of Japanese older adults (N = 809; age range 72-74). The model exhibited an excellent fit (CFI = 1); engaging in leisure activities was positively associated with all the three successful aging indicators. These findings corroborate previous research carried out in Western countries and extend its validity to the population of Eastern older adults. Albeit correlational in nature, these results suggest that active engagement in leisure activities can help older adults to maintain cognitive, physical, and mental health. Future research will clarify whether there is a causal relationship between engagement in leisure activities and successful aging.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31703115 PMCID: PMC6839878 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
The descriptive statistics of the variables.
| Males ( | Females ( | Total ( | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LA Engagement | 21.64 | 10.45 | 22.47 | 10.49 | -1.12 | .263 | 22.08 | 10.48 | 0–65 |
| MoCA-J | 23.41 | 2.92 | 23.95 | 2.96 | -2.58 | .010 | 23.69 | 2.95 | 12–30 |
| ADAS Recall | 14.91 | 3.71 | 16.61 | 3.74 | -6.49 | .000 | 15.81 | 3.82 | 5–26 |
| Number Series | 0.11 | 1.08 | -0.21 | 1.05 | 4.29 | .000 | -0.06 | 1.07 | -2.59–2.00 |
| Chair Stand Test (s) | 10.88 | 3.37 | 10.14 | 2.96 | 3.36 | .001 | 10.49 | 3.18 | 3.78–32.57 |
| Gait Speed (s) | 2.47 | 0.57 | 2.41 | 0.51 | 1.63 | .104 | 2.44 | 0.54 | 1.36–5.69 |
| Stepping Test | 25.19 | 6.42 | 26.40 | 5.75 | -2.82 | .005 | 25.82 | 6.10 | 6–46 |
| WHO5 | 15.63 | 5.09 | 16.17 | 4.85 | -1.54 | .123 | 15.91 | 4.97 | 0–25 |
| Positive Affect | 10.38 | 2.76 | 11.29 | 2.57 | -4.83 | .000 | 10.86 | 2.70 | 3–15 |
| Life Satisfaction | 23.24 | 5.72 | 23.03 | 5.38 | 0.52 | .602 | 23.13 | 5.54 | 5–35 |
| Education | 2.17 | 0.73 | 1.98 | 0.67 | 3.78 | .000 | 2.07 | 0.71 | 1–3 |
| Wealth | 2.94 | 0.81 | 2.91 | 0.79 | 0.55 | .584 | 2.92 | 0.80 | 1–5 |
Fig 1The SEM model.
The squares and rectangles represent observed variables. The rectangles represent indicators for the latent variables (circles). The arrows represent the paths.
The results of the SEM model.
| Latent variables | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MoCA-J | 1.000 | 0.672 | 1.000 | 0.596 | ||||||
| ADAS Recall | 0.854 | 0.104 | .000 | 0.587 | 0.920 | 0.182 | .000 | 0.552 | ||
| Number Series | 0.590 | 0.081 | .000 | 0.405 | 0.603 | 0.126 | .000 | 0.353 | ||
| Chair Stand Test | 1.000 | 0.589 | 1.000 | 0.646 | ||||||
| Gait Speed | 0.867 | 0.104 | .000 | 0.498 | 0.836 | 0.122 | .000 | 0.547 | ||
| Stepping Test | 1.522 | 0.190 | .000 | 0.854 | 1.082 | 0.164 | .000 | 0.732 | ||
| WHO5 | 1.000 | 0.727 | 1.000 | 0.696 | ||||||
| Positive Affect | 1.103 | 0.115 | .000 | 0.808 | 1.079 | 0.150 | .000 | 0.764 | ||
| Life Satisfaction | 0.997 | 0.102 | .000 | 0.719 | 0.882 | 0.115 | .000 | 0.617 | ||
| .427 | .204 | |||||||||
| LA Engagement | 0.219 | 0.063 | .000 | 0.306 | 0.163 | 0.054 | .003 | 0.253 | ||
| Physical Function | 0.228 | 0.047 | .000 | 0.201 | 0.160 | 0.042 | .000 | 0.174 | ||
| Mental Health | 0.015 | 0.048 | .745 | 0.017 | -0.082 | 0.038 | .034 | -0.096 | ||
| Education | 0.267 | 0.088 | .002 | 0.292 | 0.131 | 0.081 | .108 | 0.150 | ||
| Wealth | 0.081 | 0.049 | .096 | 0.103 | 0.041 | 0.064 | .527 | 0.055 | ||
| .199 | .132 | |||||||||
| LA Engagement | 0.134 | 0.045 | .003 | 0.212 | 0.172 | 0.046 | .000 | 0.246 | ||
| Cognitive Function | 0.133 | 0.036 | .000 | 0.151 | 0.123 | 0.030 | .000 | 0.113 | ||
| Mental Health | 0.026 | .896 | -0.004 | 0.031 | 0.027 | .251 | 0.034 | |||
| Education | 0.030 | 0.062 | .621 | 0.038 | 0.011 | 0.071 | .878 | 0.011 | ||
| Wealth | 0.093 | 0.049 | .057 | 0.127 | -0.003 | 0.055 | .952 | -0.004 | ||
| .214 | .114 | |||||||||
| LA Engagement | 0.203 | 0.053 | .000 | 0.259 | 0.140 | 0.045 | .002 | 0.185 | ||
| Cognitive Function | 0.002 | 0.030 | .945 | 0.002 | -0.070 | 0.025 | .005 | -0.059 | ||
| Physical Function | 0.026 | .896 | -0.004 | 0.033 | 0.024 | .165 | 0.031 | |||
| Education | 0.008 | 0.075 | .915 | 0.008 | 0.008 | 0.072 | .912 | 0.008 | ||
| Wealth | 0.297 | 0.058 | .000 | 0.327 | 0.192 | 0.057 | .000 | 0.220 | ||
Note. Estimate = unstandardized path coefficient; Std.Err = standard error; p-value = significance level; Std.Est = standardized path coefficient.
a An equality constraint was applied to identify the model.
Fig 2Representation of the significant paths in the SEM model.
The numbers indicate the standardized path coefficients in males and females, respectively. Non-significant paths in either males or females and the indicators of the latent variables (all significant) are omitted for the sake of clarity.