{"title":"Neighborhood Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Frailty among Mid-to-Older-Aged Adults in Australia: Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Associations.","authors":"Takumi Abe, Takemi Sugiyama, Alison Carver, Manoj Chandrabose, Gavin Turrell","doi":"10.1007/s11524-025-01018-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study examined the cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and frailty in middle-to-older-aged adults. Data were obtained from a cohort study conducted in Brisbane, Australia, with 3966 participants (mean age 58.2 years; female 57.6%) included in cross-sectional analysis and 2846 in longitudinal analysis (3-year follow-up). A frailty index (FI), a composite score consisting of 32 items, was used continuously (range 0-1) and categorized into frail (FI > 0.35) and non-frail. Neighborhood disadvantage was measured using the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage, an area-level composite index, and was categorized into tertiles. Two-level mixed-effects linear and logistic regression models were fitted, accounting for area-level clustering through random intercepts for areas and adjusting for demographic variables and individual-level socioeconomic status. In the cross-sectional analysis, 11% of participants were frail. Compared to residents of low disadvantage neighborhoods, those in middle and high disadvantage neighborhoods had higher levels of frailty and greater odds of being frail (OR = 1.54 [95% CI 1.13, 2.09] and OR = 2.86 [2.11, 3.88], respectively). In the longitudinal analysis, residing in middle and high disadvantage neighborhoods was significantly associated with increases in FI scores, relative to low disadvantage neighborhoods. Incident frailty was observed in 5% of participants at the follow-up. Residing in high disadvantage neighborhoods showed significantly higher odds of incident frailty (OR = 1.75 [1.08, 2.86]). Mid-to-older-aged residents of disadvantaged neighborhoods are more likely to be frail and to become frail over 3 years, compared to those in advantaged neighborhoods. Community-level interventions to reduce frailty should target disadvantage neighborhoods.</p>","PeriodicalId":49964,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-025-01018-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study examined the cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and frailty in middle-to-older-aged adults. Data were obtained from a cohort study conducted in Brisbane, Australia, with 3966 participants (mean age 58.2 years; female 57.6%) included in cross-sectional analysis and 2846 in longitudinal analysis (3-year follow-up). A frailty index (FI), a composite score consisting of 32 items, was used continuously (range 0-1) and categorized into frail (FI > 0.35) and non-frail. Neighborhood disadvantage was measured using the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage, an area-level composite index, and was categorized into tertiles. Two-level mixed-effects linear and logistic regression models were fitted, accounting for area-level clustering through random intercepts for areas and adjusting for demographic variables and individual-level socioeconomic status. In the cross-sectional analysis, 11% of participants were frail. Compared to residents of low disadvantage neighborhoods, those in middle and high disadvantage neighborhoods had higher levels of frailty and greater odds of being frail (OR = 1.54 [95% CI 1.13, 2.09] and OR = 2.86 [2.11, 3.88], respectively). In the longitudinal analysis, residing in middle and high disadvantage neighborhoods was significantly associated with increases in FI scores, relative to low disadvantage neighborhoods. Incident frailty was observed in 5% of participants at the follow-up. Residing in high disadvantage neighborhoods showed significantly higher odds of incident frailty (OR = 1.75 [1.08, 2.86]). Mid-to-older-aged residents of disadvantaged neighborhoods are more likely to be frail and to become frail over 3 years, compared to those in advantaged neighborhoods. Community-level interventions to reduce frailty should target disadvantage neighborhoods.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Urban Health is the premier and authoritative source of rigorous analyses to advance the health and well-being of people in cities. The Journal provides a platform for interdisciplinary exploration of the evidence base for the broader determinants of health and health inequities needed to strengthen policies, programs, and governance for urban health.
The Journal publishes original data, case studies, commentaries, book reviews, executive summaries of selected reports, and proceedings from important global meetings. It welcomes submissions presenting new analytic methods, including systems science approaches to urban problem solving. Finally, the Journal provides a forum linking scholars, practitioners, civil society, and policy makers from the multiple sectors that can influence the health of urban populations.