Melissa D Hladek1, Jiafeng Zhu2, Brian J Buta2, Sarah L Szanton1, Karen Bandeen-Roche2,3, Jeremy D Walston2,4, Qian-Li Xue2,3. 1. Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2. Center on Aging and Health, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 4. Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical frailty is defined as a syndrome of decreased physiologic reserve conferring vulnerability to functional decline, mortality, and other adverse outcomes upon experiencing stressors. Self-efficacy, which is confidence in one's ability to perform well in a domain of life, is modifiable. Self-efficacy is associated with improved health behavior and decreased chronic disease burden. Its relationship to frailty is unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a general self-efficacy proxy predicts incident frailty. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of 4825 U.S. older adults aged 65 and older living in the community or non-nursing home care setting enrolled in the National Health and Aging Trends Study from 2011 to 2018 was used. Self-efficacy was dichotomized into low and high groups using the one-item self-efficacy proxy measure. The Physical Frailty Phenotype was used to categorize participants as frail and non-frail. A discrete time hazard model using data from eight rounds was used to obtain incident hazard ratios of frailty in two models. Model 1 was adjusted for age, race, sex, education, and income. Model 2 contained Model 1 covariates and added disability and comorbidities. RESULTS: Among people without frailty at baseline, risk of developing frailty over 7 years was increased by 41% among those with low versus high self-efficacy after adjustment for sociodemographics (P = 0.002), and by 27% after further adjustment for disability and comorbidities (P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: This study generates a rationale to further explore self-efficacy in frailty research. Self-efficacy may be a key modifiable element to incorporate into multimodal physical frailty interventions.
BACKGROUND: Physical frailty is defined as a syndrome of decreased physiologic reserve conferring vulnerability to functional decline, mortality, and other adverse outcomes upon experiencing stressors. Self-efficacy, which is confidence in one's ability to perform well in a domain of life, is modifiable. Self-efficacy is associated with improved health behavior and decreased chronic disease burden. Its relationship to frailty is unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a general self-efficacy proxy predicts incident frailty. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of 4825 U.S. older adults aged 65 and older living in the community or non-nursing home care setting enrolled in the National Health and Aging Trends Study from 2011 to 2018 was used. Self-efficacy was dichotomized into low and high groups using the one-item self-efficacy proxy measure. The Physical Frailty Phenotype was used to categorize participants as frail and non-frail. A discrete time hazard model using data from eight rounds was used to obtain incident hazard ratios of frailty in two models. Model 1 was adjusted for age, race, sex, education, and income. Model 2 contained Model 1 covariates and added disability and comorbidities. RESULTS: Among people without frailty at baseline, risk of developing frailty over 7 years was increased by 41% among those with low versus high self-efficacy after adjustment for sociodemographics (P = 0.002), and by 27% after further adjustment for disability and comorbidities (P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: This study generates a rationale to further explore self-efficacy in frailty research. Self-efficacy may be a key modifiable element to incorporate into multimodal physical frailty interventions.
Authors: Paschal Sheeran; Alexander Maki; Erika Montanaro; Aya Avishai-Yitshak; Angela Bryan; William M P Klein; Eleanor Miles; Alexander J Rothman Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2016-06-09 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Therri Usher; Brian Buta; Roland J Thorpe; Jin Huang; Laura J Samuel; Judith D Kasper; Karen Bandeen-Roche Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Robbert J J Gobbens; Marcel A L M van Assen; Katrien G Luijkx; Maria Th Wijnen-Sponselee; Jos M G A Schols Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2010-05-08 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Linda M Delahanty; Mark Peyrot; Peter J Shrader; Donald A Williamson; James B Meigs; David M Nathan Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-11-05 Impact factor: 19.112