| Literature DB >> 31992257 |
Stefanie Sperlich1, Johannes Beller2, Jelena Epping2, Juliane Tetzlaff2, Siegfried Geyer2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Against the backdrop of rising statutory retirement age in Germany, we analyzed time trends in self-rated health (SRH) among the elderly population between 50 and 70 years of age and explored the mediating role of leisure time physical activity (LTPA) on the relationship between time period and self-rated health (SRH).Entities:
Keywords: Leisure time physical activity; Mediation; SRH; Time trend
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31992257 PMCID: PMC6988275 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-020-8218-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Weighted sample characteristics
| men | women | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | n | % | n | % |
| Time points (years) | ||||
| 1 (95/96/97) | 10,553 | 20.8 | 10,933 | 20.8 |
| 2 (98/99) | 7190 | 14.1 | 7309 | 13.9 |
| 3 (01/03) | 7327 | 14.4 | 7556 | 14.4 |
| 4 (05/07/08) | 10,994 | 21.6 | 11,440 | 21.8 |
| 5 (09/11) | 7202 | 14.2 | 7502 | 14.3 |
| 6 (13/15) | 7582 | 14.9 | 7798 | 14.8 |
| total | 50,848 | 100 | 52,538 | 100 |
| missing | – | 0.0 | – | 0.0 |
| Equivalence income | ||||
| < 60% median | 5615 | 11.0 | 7319 | 13.9 |
| 60% - < 150% median | 33,240 | 65.4 | 34,867 | 66.4 |
| ≥ 150% median | 11,983 | 23.6 | 10,310 | 19.6 |
| total | 50,838 | 100 | 52,496 | 100 |
| missing | 10 | < 0.0 | 42 | < 0.0 |
| School education | ||||
| primary / no education | 25,445 | 51.0 | 28,030 | 54.5 |
| secondary | 10,394 | 20.8 | 13,141 | 25.6 |
| tertiary | 9634 | 19.3 | 6503 | 12.7 |
| other qualification | 4417 | 8.9 | 3725 | 7.2 |
| total | 49,890 | 100 | 51,399 | 100 |
| missing | 958 | 1.9 | 1139 | 2.2 |
| Nationality | ||||
| German | 46,190 | 90.8 | 48,792 | 92.9 |
| others | 4658 | 9.2 | 3746 | 7.1 |
| total | 50,848 | 100 | 52,538 | 100 |
| missing | – | 0.0 | – | 0.0 |
| Marital status | ||||
| single | 9945 | 19.6 | 15,835 | 30.1 |
| with partner | 40,901 | 80.4 | 36,701 | 69.9 |
| total | 50,846 | 100 | 52,535 | 100 |
| missing | 2 | < 0.0 | 3 | < 0.0 |
| Employment status | ||||
| Full time | 24,491 | 48.2 | 10,329 | 19.7 |
| Part time | 2282 | 4.5 | 10,418 | 19.8 |
| Not employed | 24,075 | 47.3 | 31,790 | 60.5 |
| total | 50,846 | 100 | 52,538 | 100 |
| missing | – | 0.0 | – | 0.0 |
| Physical activity | ||||
| (almost) never | 24,909 | 49.6 | 25,834 | 50.0 |
| serveral times a year | 8836 | 17.6 | 7044 | 13.6 |
| at least once a month | 2894 | 5.8 | 2273 | 4.4 |
| at least once a week | 13,577 | 27.0 | 16,522 | 32.0 |
| total | 50,216 | 100 | 51,674 | 100 |
| missing | 632 | 1.2 | 864 | 1.6 |
n = number of observations
Fig. 1Path decomposition of total effect of time trend (X) on self-rated health (SRH) (Y) into direct and indirect effects via leisure time physical activity (LTPA) (Z)
Fig. 2Predicted probabilities of good and poor SRH over time in men and women aged 50 to 70 years with 95% confidence intervals, adjusted for age. Significant changes in SRH compared with baseline (1995/96/97): *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Fig. 3Predicted probabilities of regular LTPA in men and women over time with 95% confidence intervals, adjusted for age. Significant changes in LTPA compared with baseline (1995/96/97): *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Fig. 4Predicted probabilities of good / poor SRH (%) according to regular LTPA in men and women with 95% confidence intervals, adjusted for age, school education and income. Significant differences between groups: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Decomposition of the total time effect on good / poor SRH into direct and indirect effects via leisure time physical activity (LTPA) – using KHB-method for GEE logistic regression
| Good SRH | ||||||||
| Men | Women | |||||||
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 2 | |||||
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
| Total time effect | 1.38*** | 1.25–1.52 | 1.13* | 1.04–1.29 | 1.77*** | 1.63–1.98 | 1.34*** | 1.20–1.41 |
| Direct time effect | 1.14* | 1.03–1.25 | 1.00 | 0.93–1.15 | 1.38*** | 1.26–1.52 | 1.15** | 1.03–1.28 |
| Indirect time effect | 1.21*** | 1.19–1.24 | 1.13*** | 1.11–1.15 | 1.28*** | 1.24–1.31 | 1.17*** | 1.14–1.19 |
APE (%-points) | 95% CI | APE (%-points) | 95% CI | APE (%-points) | 95% CI | APE (%-points) | 95% CI | |
| Total time effect | 7.3 | 5.1–9.4 | 2.7 | 0.9–5.7 | 12.4 | 10.4–14.4 | 6.8 | 4.5–9.1 |
| Direct time effect | 2.9 | 0.7–5.1 | 0.0 | −1.6-3.1 | 7.1 | 5.0–9.2 | 3.5 | 1.2–5.9 |
| Indirect time effect | 4.4 | ---a | 2.7 | --- a | 5.3 | --- a | 3.3 | --- a |
| Conf_ratio | 2.5 | --- b | 1.7 | 2.1 | ||||
| Conf_pct | 60.1 | 100.0 | 42.8 | 53.4 | ||||
| Poor SRH | ||||||||
| Men | Women | |||||||
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 1 | Model 2 | |||||
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
| Total time effect | 0.75*** | 0.67–0.84 | 1.04 | 0.91–1.18 | 0.72*** | 0.65–0.80 | 0.99 | 0.88–1.12 |
| Direct time effect | 0.96 | 0.86–1.08 | 1.21** | 1.07–1.38 | 0.92 | 0.83–1.03 | 1.18** | 1.04–1.33 |
| Indirect time effect | 0.79*** | 0.77–0.81 | 0.86*** | 0.84–0.88 | 0.78*** | 0.76–0.80 | 0.85*** | 0.83–0.87 |
APE (%-points) | 95% CI | APE (%-points) | 95% CI | APE (%-points) | 95% CI | APE (%-points) | 95% CI | |
| Total time effect | −4.7 | −6.6-2.8 | 0.6 | −1.4-2.6 | −6.0 | −8.2-0.4 | −0.1 | −0.22-0.20 |
| Direct time effect | −0.7 | −2.6-1.2 | 3.0 | 1.0–5.0 | −1.4 | −3.5-0.5 | 2.8 | 0.70–4.94 |
| Indirect time effect | −4.0 | --- a | −2.4 | --- a | −4.6 | --- a | −2.9 | --- a |
| Conf_ratio | 6.9 | --- c | 4.2 | --- c | ||||
| Conf_pct | 85.5 | --- c | 76.3 | --- c | ||||
OR Odds ratio, APE Average partial effects (change in average probability of good / poor health over time in percentage points), model 1 adjusted for age, model 2 additionally adjusted for school education, income and occupational position. Conf_ratio: Confounding ratio, gives information on the total effect size relative to the direct effect size, calculated by: total effect / direct effect. Conf_pct: Confounding percentage measures the percentage change of effect attributable to confounding net of rescaling, calculated by: indirect effect / total effect. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001,--- a95% Confidence intervall cannot be calculated since standard errors of indirect effects are not known for APE method, −--bConf_ratio cannot be calculated in case of direct effect = 0, −--cConf_ratio and Conf_pct cannot be meaningfully interpreted in case of non-significant total effect