| Literature DB >> 32138691 |
Han-Yun Tseng1,2, Corinna Löckenhoff2, Chun-Yi Lee1, Shu-Han Yu3, I-Chien Wu1, Hsing-Yi Chang1, Yen-Feng Chiu4, Chao Agnes Hsiung1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Declines in health, physical, cognitive, and mental function with age suggest a lower level of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in late life; however, previous studies found that the associations were weak and varied, depending on the study designs and cohort characteristics.Entities:
Keywords: Mental health score; Objective physical health, subjective physical health; Physical health score
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32138691 PMCID: PMC7057585 DOI: 10.1186/s12877-020-1446-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Geriatr ISSN: 1471-2318 Impact factor: 3.921
Fig. 1A flowchart of the data-collection process and attrition for the HALST study (baseline: 2009–2013), and the data selection for the current study (n = 5022)
Descriptive statistics. Mean (SE) or proportions (%)
| Characteristics | All | Young old (< 65 y) | Old old (≥65 y) |
|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) | 5664 (100.0) | 1686 (29.8) | 3978 (70.2) |
| Age (mean ± SE)** | 69.6 ± 0.1 | 59.8 ± 0.06 | 73.8 ± 0.09 |
| Sociodemographic characteristics | |||
| Female (%) | 2988 (52.8) | 886 (52.6) | 2102 (52.8) |
| Education level** | |||
| Illiterate | 799 (14.1) | 49 (2.9) | 750 (18.9) |
| Elementary school | 2322 (41.0) | 570 (33.8) | 1752 (44.1) |
| Middle school or higher | 2539 (44.9) | 1065 (63.2) | 1474 (37.1) |
| Employed (%)** | 1433 (25.3) | 783 (46.4) | 650 (16.3) |
| Partnered (%)** | 4159 (73.4) | 1438 (85.3) | 2721 (68.4) |
| Reside in urban area (%) | 2911 (51.4) | 891 (52.8) | 2020 (50.8) |
| Cohabitant (%)** | 5155 (91.0) | 1579 (93.7) | 3576 (89.9) |
| Health-related variables | |||
| Handgrip strength (mean ± SE)** | 29.0 ± 0.1 | 33.1 ± 0.2 | 27.3 ± 0.2 |
| SPPB (mean ± SE)** | 10.4 ± 0.03 | 11.4 ± 0.03 | 10.0 ± 0.05 |
| MMSE (mean ± SE)** | 26.2 ± 0.05 | 28.0 ± 0.06 | 25.4 ± 0.06 |
| Depression (CES-D > 16; %) | 318 (5.6) | 98 (5.8) | 220 (5.5) |
| HRQoL | |||
| PCS (mean ± SE)** | 46.8 ± 0.1 | 49.3 ± 0.2 | 45.7 ± 0.2 |
| MCS (mean ± SE)** | 59.3 ± 0.1 | 58.7 ± 0.2 | 59.6 ± 0.1 |
Kruskal–Wallis test or test was conducted to detect the differences between two groups (Young old, and Old old)
* p-value< 0.05, ** p-value< 0.001
Urban: *City: Taipei, Changhua, Kaohsiung, Hualien *Rural: Miaoli, Yangmei, Shoufeng, Chiayi
Intercorrelations among age, health-related variables, and HRQoL (n = 5022)
| Variables | Age | MMSE | CES-D | Handgrip strength | SPPB | PCS | MCS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | – | −0.40** | 0.046* | −0.33** | − 0.42** | − 0.26** | 0.063** |
| MMSE | −0.40** | – | − 0.18** | 0.39** | 0.43** | 0.26** | 0.049** |
| CES-D | 0.046* | −0.18** | – | − 0.18** | −0.24** | − 0.25** | −0.67** |
| Handgrip strength | −0.33** | 0.39** | −0.18** | – | 0.40** | 0.32** | 0.066** |
| SPPB | −0.42** | 0.43** | −0.24** | 0.40** | – | 0.55** | 0.082** |
| PCS | −0.26** | 0.26** | −0.25** | 0.32** | 0.55** | – | −0.048** |
| MCS | 0.063** | 0.049** | −0.67** | 0.066** | 0.082** | −0.048** | – |
Note: * p-value< 0.05, ** p-value< 0.001
Fig. 2LOESS fitted MCS and PCS curves over age
Regressing PCS, showing unstandardized regression coefficients
| PCS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| model 1 | model 2 | model 3 | model 4 | |
| Age | −0.28 (0.015)** | −0.22 (0.017)** | − 0.025 (0.017) | 0.055 (0.059) |
| Covariates | ||||
| Female (ref. male) | −1.73 (0.26)** | 0.34 (0.33) | 0.33 (0.33) | |
| Elementary school (ref. illiterate) | −0.47 (0.41) | −0.45 (0.36) | − 0.48 (0.36) | |
| Middle school or higher (ref. illiterate) | 0.30 (0.47) | 0.27 (0.42) | 0.20 (0.42) | |
| Employed (ref. unemployed) | 1.45 (0.29)** | 0.86 (0.26)** | 0.87 (0.26)** | |
| Partnered (ref. unpartnered) | −0.39 (0.31) | − 0.64 (0.27)* | −0.67 (0.28)* | |
| Living in urban areas (ref. rural) | 1.38 (0.24)** | 1.15 (0.21)** | 1.12 (0.21)** | |
| Cohabitant (ref. alone) | −1.34 (0.44)* | −0.92 (0.39)* | −0.91 (0.39)* | |
| MMSE | 0.22 (0.043)** | −0.080 (0.039)* | −0.088 (0.039)* | |
| CES-D | −0.31 (0.019)** | −0.18 (0.018)** | − 0.17 (0.018)** | |
| Objective health indicators | ||||
| Handgrip strength | 0.11 (0.018)** | −0.18 (0.098) | ||
| SPPB | 1.63 (0.050)** | 3.07 (0.42)** | ||
| Interaction terms | ||||
| Age*handgrip | 0.0043 (0.0014)* | |||
| Age*SPPB | −0.020 (0.0056)** | |||
Note: N = 5022. *p-value< 0.05, ** p-value< 0.001. Model 1: age (unadjusted); model 2: same as model 1 plus demographic, SES, MMSE, and CES-D variables; model 3: same as model 2 plus objective health indicators; model 4: same as model 3 plus interactions between age and objective health indicators. Preliminary analyses did not find any evidence for quadratic or cubic age terms (ps > .05); therefore, subsequent analyses included only a linear age term
Regressing MCS, showing unstandardized regression coefficients
| MCS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| model 1 | model 2 | model 3 | model 4 | |
| Age | 0.062 (0.014)** | 0.075 (0.012)** | 0.063 (0.014)** | 0.050 (0.049) |
| Covariates | ||||
| Female (ref. male) | 0.14 (0.19) | 0.13 (0.27) | 0.13 (0.27) | |
| Elementary school (ref. illiterate) | − 0.55 (0.30) | −0.54 (0.30) | − 0.54 (0.30) | |
| Middle school or higher (ref. illiterate) | −1.03 (0.35)* | −1.02 (0.35)* | −1.01 (0.35)* | |
| Employed (ref. unemployed) | 0.086 (0.21) | 0.13 (0.21) | 0.13 (0.21) | |
| Partnered (ref. unpartnered) | −0.068 (0.23) | −0.042 (0.23) | − 0.038 (0.23) | |
| Living in urban areas (ref. rural) | 0.26 (0.18) | 0.28 (0.18) | 0.29 (0.18) | |
| Cohabitant (ref. alone) | −0.24 (0.32) | −0.27 (0.32) | − 0.27 (0.32) | |
| MMSE | −0.034 (0.032) | −0.011 (0.032) | − 0.0094 (0.032) | |
| CES-D | −0.92 (0.014)** | −0.93 (0.015)** | − 0.93 (0.015)** | |
| Objective health indicators | ||||
| Handgrip strength | 0.0021 (0.014) | 0.044 (0.081) | ||
| SPPB | −0.15 (0.041)** | −0.36 (0.35) | ||
| Interaction terms | ||||
| Age*handgrip | −0.00062 (0.0012) | |||
| Age*SPPB | 0.0029 (0.0046) | |||
Note: N = 5022. *p-value< 0.05, ** p-value< 0.001. Model 1: age (unadjusted); model 2: same as model 1 plus demographic, SES, MMSE, and CES-D variables; model 3: same as model 2 plus objective health indicators; model 4: same as model 3 plus interactions between age and objective health indicators. Preliminary analyses did not find any evidence for quadratic or cubic age terms (ps > .05); therefore, subsequent analyses included only a linear age term