Jinjiao Wang1, Dexia Kong2, Fang Yu3, Yeates Conwell4, Xinqi Dong2. 1. School of Nursing, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA. 2. Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. 3. School of Nursing, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the added effect of having both cognitive deficit and physical frailty, compared to having either one only, on hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visits. METHODS: Data from a population-based study of 3,157 community-dwelling older (≥60 years) Chinese adults in the U.S. were used. Cognitive deficit was measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination (i.e. education-adjusted score: 16 [illiterate], 19 [primary school], and 23 [≥middle school]). Physical frailty was identified using the Short Performance Physical Battery (0-6 out of 15). The numbers of hospitalizations and ED visits in the previous two years were self-reported. RESULTS: In this sample, 12.63% had cognitive deficit alone, 5.95% had physical frailty alone, and 4.26% had both. Compared with participants having neither cognitive deficit nor physical frailty, those having physical frailty alone were 1.5 times as likely to have hospitalizations (Rate Ratio [RR] = 1.52 [1.07, 2.16], p = 0.02) and ED visits (RR = 1.52 [1.07, 2.15], p = 0.02). Having cognitive deficit alone was not significantly related to either outcome. However, having cognitive deficit with existing physical frailty increased the likelihood of both hospitalization (RR = 2.00 [1.36, 2.96], p < 0.001) and ED visits (RR = 2.04 [1.37, 3.03], p < 0.001) to a greater extent than having physical frailty alone. CONCLUSION: Having cognitive deficit alone was not significantly related to the likelihood of hospitalizations or ED visits, however having cognitive deficit with existing physical frailty increased the likelihood of both outcomes to a greater degree than having physical frailty alone. This suggests cognitive deficit and physical frailty have synergistic effects on hospitalizations and ED visits.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the added effect of having both cognitive deficit and physical frailty, compared to having either one only, on hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visits. METHODS: Data from a population-based study of 3,157 community-dwelling older (≥60 years) Chinese adults in the U.S. were used. Cognitive deficit was measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination (i.e. education-adjusted score: 16 [illiterate], 19 [primary school], and 23 [≥middle school]). Physical frailty was identified using the Short Performance Physical Battery (0-6 out of 15). The numbers of hospitalizations and ED visits in the previous two years were self-reported. RESULTS: In this sample, 12.63% had cognitive deficit alone, 5.95% had physical frailty alone, and 4.26% had both. Compared with participants having neither cognitive deficit nor physical frailty, those having physical frailty alone were 1.5 times as likely to have hospitalizations (Rate Ratio [RR] = 1.52 [1.07, 2.16], p = 0.02) and ED visits (RR = 1.52 [1.07, 2.15], p = 0.02). Having cognitive deficit alone was not significantly related to either outcome. However, having cognitive deficit with existing physical frailty increased the likelihood of both hospitalization (RR = 2.00 [1.36, 2.96], p < 0.001) and ED visits (RR = 2.04 [1.37, 3.03], p < 0.001) to a greater extent than having physical frailty alone. CONCLUSION: Having cognitive deficit alone was not significantly related to the likelihood of hospitalizations or ED visits, however having cognitive deficit with existing physical frailty increased the likelihood of both outcomes to a greater degree than having physical frailty alone. This suggests cognitive deficit and physical frailty have synergistic effects on hospitalizations and ED visits.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cognitive deficit; health services use; older adults; physical frailty
Authors: Márlon J R Aliberti; Irena S Cenzer; Alexander K Smith; Sei J Lee; Kristine Yaffe; Kenneth E Covinsky Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-11-23 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Jan Cameron; Linda Worrall-Carter; Karen Page; Barbara Riegel; Sing Kai Lo; Simon Stewart Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Raymond L C Vogels; Philip Scheltens; Jutta M Schroeder-Tanka; Henry C Weinstein Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2006-12-14 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Sharon K Inouye; Ying Zhang; Ling Han; Linda Leo-Summers; Richard Jones; Edward Marcantonio Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2006-09-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: E Kelaiditi; M Cesari; M Canevelli; G Abellan van Kan; P-J Ousset; S Gillette-Guyonnet; P Ritz; F Duveau; M E Soto; V Provencher; F Nourhashemi; A Salvà; P Robert; S Andrieu; Y Rolland; J Touchon; J L Fitten; B Vellas Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Francesco Panza; Vincenza Frisardi; Cristiano Capurso; Alessia D'Introno; Anna M Colacicco; Bruno P Imbimbo; Andrea Santamato; Gianluigi Vendemiale; Davide Seripa; Alberto Pilotto; Antonio Capurso; Vincenzo Solfrizzi Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Jenni N Ikonen; Johan G Eriksson; Minna K Salonen; Eero Kajantie; Otso Arponen; Markus J Haapanen Journal: Ann Med Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 4.709
Authors: Brian Buta; Ari B Friedman; Shang-En Chung; Orla C Sheehan; Marcela D Blinka; Susan L Gearhart; Qian-Li Xue Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2022-08-31 Impact factor: 4.070