| Literature DB >> 32933170 |
Osamu Kushida1,2, Jong-Seong Moon3, Daisuke Matsumoto4, Naomi Yamasaki3, Katsuhiko Takatori4.
Abstract
This cross-sectional study investigated the association between eating alone at each meal and health status, including functional capacity among community-dwelling Japanese elderly living with others. A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to all 8004 residents aged 65 or older, residing in the same Japanese town in March 2016. Eating alone was assessed by first asking whether participants ate three separate meals each day (i.e., breakfast, lunch, and dinner), and those who answered affirmatively were then asked how many people were usually present at each meal. Health status was assessed in terms of subjective health, medical history, care needs, body mass index, depression, and functional capacity. Data from 2809 respondents were analyzed. Those who reported not being in good subjective health and a history of hypertension were significantly more likely to eat alone at breakfast (odds ratio 1.27; 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.61, and 1.26; 1.06-1.49). Depressive symptoms and many subscales of functional capacity were also significantly associated with eating alone at breakfast, lunch, and dinner (p < 0.05). Many health status indicators were related to eating alone at each meal, especially breakfast.Entities:
Keywords: breakfast; community-dwelling elderly; dinner; eating alone; functional capacity; lunch
Year: 2020 PMID: 32933170 PMCID: PMC7551543 DOI: 10.3390/nu12092805
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Association of socio-demographic characteristics with eating alone at each meal (n = 2809).
| Eating Alone at Breakfast a | Eating Alone at Lunch a | Eating Alone at Dinner a | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| OR |
| OR |
| OR | ||||
| % | (95% CI) |
| % | (95% CI) |
| % | (95% CI) |
| ||
| Gender | ||||||||||
| Men | 1378 | 358 | 1 | 330 | 1 | 98 | 1 | |||
| 26.0 | (ref) | 23.9 | (ref) | 7.1 | (ref) | |||||
| Women | 1431 | 438 | 1.26 | 423 | 1.33 | 139 | 1.41 | |||
| 30.6 | (1.07–1.48) | ** | 29.6 | (1.13–1.58) | ** | 9.7 | (1.07–1.84) | * | ||
| Age | ||||||||||
| 65–69 year | 1062 | 334 | 1 | 328 | 1 | 83 | 1 | |||
| 31.5 | (ref) | 30.9 | (ref) | 7.8 | (ref) | |||||
| 70–74 year | 748 | 176 | 0.67 | 160 | 0.61 | 43 | 0.72 | |||
| 23.5 | (0.54–0.83) | *** | 21.4 | (0.49–0.76) | *** | 5.7 | (0.49–1.05) | |||
| 75–79 year | 511 | 122 | 0.68 | 121 | 0.69 | 49 | 1.25 | |||
| 23.9 | (0.54–0.87) | ** | 23.7 | (0.55–0.88) | ** | 9.6 | (0.86–1.81) | |||
| 80 year or older | 488 | 164 | 1.10 | 144 | 0.94 | 62 | 1.72 | |||
| 33.6 | (0.88–1.39) | 29.5 | (0.74–1.18) | 12.7 | (1.21–2.43) | ** | ||||
| Education history | ||||||||||
| 9 year or less | 656 | 199 | 1 | 178 | 1 | 75 | 1 | |||
| 30.3 | (ref) | 27.1 | (ref) | 11.4 | (ref) | |||||
| 10–12 year | 1274 | 352 | 0.88 | 346 | 1.00 | 100 | 0.66 | |||
| 27.6 | (0.71–1.08) | 27.2 | (0.81–1.24) | 7.8 | (0.48–0.90) | * | ||||
| 13 year or more | 860 | 243 | 0.90 | 227 | 0.96 | 61 | 0.59 | |||
| 28.3 | (0.72–1.13) | 26.4 | (0.77–1.21) | 7.1 | (0.41–0.84) | ** | ||||
| Self-assessed living conditions c | ||||||||||
| Difficult | 518 | 166 | 1 | 152 | 1 | 49 | 1 | |||
| 32.0 | (ref) | 29.3 | (ref) | 9.5 | (ref) | |||||
| Not difficult | 2270 | 624 | 0.80 | 597 | 0.86 | 185 | 0.85 | |||
| 27.5 | (0.65–0.99) | * | 26.3 | (0.70–1.06) | 8.1 | (0.61–1.18) | ||||
| Area of residence | ||||||||||
| Former village areas | 1607 | 480 | 1 | 390 | 1 | 140 | 1 | |||
| 29.9 | (ref) | 24.3 | (ref) | 8.7 | (ref) | |||||
| New residential areas | 1188 | 314 | 0.84 | 361 | 1.36 | 97 | 0.93 | |||
| 26.4 | (0.71–1.00) | * | 30.4 | (1.15–1.61) | *** | 8.2 | (0.71–1.22) | |||
| Working status | ||||||||||
| Not working | 2059 | 564 | 1 | 530 | 1 | 175 | 1 | |||
| 27.4 | (ref) | 25.7 | (ref) | 8.5 | (ref) | |||||
| Working | 710 | 221 | 1.20 | 213 | 1.24 | 56 | 0.92 | |||
| 31.1 | (0.99–1.44) | 30.0 | (1.02–1.49) | * | 7.9 | (0.67–1.26) | ||||
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval. a 0 = eating together, 1 = eating alone. b Binary logistic regression analysis. c Difficult: "very difficult, difficult", not difficult: "normal, somewhat comfortable, very comfortable". * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Association of eating alone at each meal with subjective health, medical history, care needs, and depression (n = 2809).
| (Eating Breakfast) | (Eating Lunch) | (Eating Dinner) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Together | Alone |
| Together | Alone |
| Together | Alone |
| ||
| Subjective health bc |
| 2004 | 792 | 2048 | 748 | 2560 | 236 | |||
| Not in good health |
| 290 | 139 | 311 | 118 | 384 | 45 | |||
| % | 14.5 | 17.6 | 15.2 | 15.8 | 15.0 | 19.1 | ||||
| OR | 1 | 1.27 | 1 | 1.10 | 1 | 1.19 | ||||
| (95% CI) | (ref) | (1.01–1.61) | * | (ref) | (0.86–1.41) | (ref) | (0.83–1.73) | |||
| Medical history b |
| 2004 | 792 | 2047 | 749 | 2561 | 235 | |||
| Hypertension |
| 826 | 370 | 872 | 324 | 1090 | 106 | |||
| % | 41.2 | 46.7 | 42.6 | 43.3 | 42.6 | 45.1 | ||||
| OR | 1 | 1.26 | 1 | 1.06 | 1 | 1.02 | ||||
| (95% CI) | (ref) | (1.06–1.49) | ** | (ref) | (0.89–1.26) | (ref) | (0.77–1.35) | |||
| Diabetes |
| 269 | 116 | 265 | 120 | 349 | 36 | |||
| % | 13.4 | 14.6 | 12.9 | 16.0 | 13.6 | 15.3 | ||||
| OR | 1 | 1.13 | 1 | 1.38 | 1 | 1.15 | ||||
| (95% CI) | (ref) | (0.88–1.43) | (ref) | (1.08–1.75) | * | (ref) | (0.78–1.70) | |||
| Cardiovascular disease |
| 221 | 95 | 232 | 84 | 285 | 31 | |||
| % | 11.0 | 12.0 | 11.3 | 11.2 | 11.1 | 13.2 | ||||
| OR | 1 | 1.16 | 1 | 1.08 | 1 | 1.25 | ||||
| (95% CI) | (ref) | (0.88–1.51) | (ref) | (0.82–1.42) | (ref) | (0.83–1.90) | ||||
| Stroke |
| 52 | 16 | 56 | 12 | 63 | 5 | |||
| % | 2.6 | 2.0 | 2.7 | 1.6 | 2.5 | 2.1 | ||||
| OR | 1 | 0.79 | 1 | 0.59 | 1 | 0.85 | ||||
| (95% CI) | (ref) | (0.45–1.41) | (ref) | (0.31–1.15) | (ref) | (0.33–2.17) | ||||
| Osteoporosis |
| 140 | 72 | 150 | 62 | 185 | 27 | |||
| % | 7.0 | 9.1 | 7.3 | 8.3 | 7.2 | 11.5 | ||||
| OR | 1 | 1.15 | 1 | 1.02 | 1 | 1.29 | ||||
| (95% CI) | (ref) | (0.84–1.58) | (ref) | (0.74–1.42) | (ref) | (0.82–2.04) | ||||
| Rheumatoid arthritis |
| 57 | 18 | 55 | 20 | 64 | 11 | |||
| % | 2.8 | 2.3 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.5 | 4.7 | ||||
| OR | 1 | 0.78 | 1 | 1.01 | 1 | 1.86 | ||||
| (95% CI) | (ref) | (0.45–1.34) | (ref) | (0.60–1.71) | (ref) | (0.96–3.61) | ||||
| Dyslipidemia |
| 746 | 286 | 779 | 253 | 955 | 77 | |||
| % | 37.2 | 36.1 | 38.1 | 33.8 | 37.3 | 32.8 | ||||
| OR | 1 | 0.93 | 1 | 0.80 | 1 | 0.85 | ||||
| (95% CI) | (ref) | (0.78–1.10) | (ref) | (0.67–0.96) | * | (ref) | (0.64–1.14) | |||
| Care needs b |
| 2010 | 795 | 2052 | 753 | 2568 | 237 | |||
| Certification |
| 102 | 63 | 107 | 58 | 137 | 28 | |||
| % | 5.1 | 7.9 | 5.2 | 7.7 | 5.3 | 11.8 | ||||
| OR | 1 | 1.24 | 1 | 1.39 | 1 | 1.23 | ||||
| (95% CI) | (ref) | (0.85–1.82) | (ref) | (0.95–2.05) | (ref) | (0.73–2.10) | ||||
| GDS 5 bd |
| 1909 | 765 | 1951 | 723 | 2448 | 226 | |||
| Depressive symptoms |
| 426 | 244 | 458 | 212 | 578 | 92 | |||
| % | 22.3 | 31.9 | 23.5 | 29.3 | 23.6 | 40.7 | ||||
| OR | 1 | 1.71 | 1 | 1.43 | 1 | 2.13 | ||||
| (95% CI) | (ref) | (1.40–2.09) | *** | (ref) | (1.17–1.76) | ** | (ref) | (1.57–2.90) | *** | |
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; GDS 5, 5-item Geriatric Depression Scale. a Binary logistic regression analysis adjusted for gender, age, education history, self-assessed living conditions, residential area, and working status. b 0 = Absence of symptoms, 1 = Presence of symptoms. c Not in good health: "bad, not good", in good health: "not bad, good, very good. d Two or more negative answers for depression screening were used to diagnose the presence of depressive symptoms. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Association of eating alone at each meal with BMI and scores of functional capacity (n = 2809).
| (Eating Breakfast) | (Eating Lunch) | (Eating Dinner) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Together | Alone |
| Together | Alone |
| Together | Alone |
| ||
| BMI: weight (kg)/height (m)2 |
| 1913 | 767 | 1951 | 729 | 2455 | 225 | |||
| Mean | 22.7 | 22.7 | 0.890 | 22.7 | 22.7 | 0.627 | 22.7 | 22.4 | 0.570 | |
| SD | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | ||||
| Functional capacity | ||||||||||
| TMIG-IC | ||||||||||
| Instrumental Self-Maintenance b |
| 1916 | 765 | 1954 | 727 | 2457 | 224 | |||
| Mean | 4.5 | 4.5 | 0.818 | 4.5 | 4.6 | 0.554 | 4.5 | 4.3 | 0.230 | |
| SD | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.4 | ||||
| Intellectual Activity c |
| 1917 | 759 | 1957 | 719 | 2454 | 222 | |||
| Mean | 3.5 | 3.4 | 0.001 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 0.040 | 3.5 | 3.2 | < 0.001 | |
| SD | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 1.1 | ||||
| Social Role c |
| 1892 | 761 | 1937 | 716 | 2435 | 218 | |||
| Mean | 3.0 | 2.8 | < 0.001 | 3.0 | 2.8 | < 0.001 | 3.0 | 2.6 | < 0.001 | |
| SD | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.3 | ||||
| TMIG-IC score d |
| 1847 | 736 | 1889 | 694 | 2375 | 208 | |||
| Mean | 11.1 | 10.7 | < 0.001 | 11.0 | 10.9 | 0.004 | 11.1 | 10.2 | < 0.001 | |
| SD | 2.4 | 2.6 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 3.2 | ||||
| JST-IC | ||||||||||
| Social Engagement c |
| 1896 | 753 | 1931 | 718 | 2429 | 220 | |||
| Mean | 1.9 | 1.5 | < 0.001 | 1.8 | 1.5 | < 0.001 | 1.8 | 1.2 | < 0.001 | |
| SD | 1.6 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.5 | ||||
| Technology Usage c |
| 1884 | 750 | 1921 | 713 | 2415 | 219 | |||
| Mean | 2.9 | 2.8 | 0.039 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 0.942 | 2.9 | 2.6 | 0.486 | |
| SD | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.5 | ||||
| Information Practice c |
| 1874 | 747 | 1916 | 705 | 2403 | 218 | |||
| Mean | 3.1 | 2.9 | 0.003 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 0.078 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 0.002 | |
| SD | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.3 | ||||
| Life Management c |
| 1848 | 738 | 1885 | 701 | 2374 | 212 | |||
| Mean | 2.9 | 2.6 | < 0.001 | 2.9 | 2.7 | < 0.001 | 2.9 | 2.4 | < 0.001 | |
| SD | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.4 | ||||
| JST-IC score e |
| 1746 | 692 | 1772 | 666 | 2238 | 200 | |||
| Mean | 10.3 | 9.4 | < 0.001 | 10.1 | 9.7 | < 0.001 | 10.1 | 8.6 | < 0.001 | |
| SD | 3.6 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 4.0 | ||||
BMI, body mass index; SD, standard deviation; TMIG-IC, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology Index of Competence; JST-IC, Japan Science and Technology Agency Index of Competence. a Analysis of covariance adjusted for gender, age, education history, self-assessed living conditions, residential area, and working status. b Range: 0 (Not good)–5 (Good). c Range: 0 (Not good)–4 (Good). d Range: 0 (Not good)–13 (Good). e Range: 0 (Not good)–16 (Good).