Neighborhood Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Frailty among Mid-to-Older-Aged Adults in Australia: Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Associations.

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Takumi Abe, Takemi Sugiyama, Alison Carver, Manoj Chandrabose, Gavin Turrell
{"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.

澳大利亚中老年人的社区社会经济劣势和虚弱:横断面和纵向关联。
本研究探讨了中老年人社区社会经济劣势与虚弱之间的横断面和纵向关联。数据来源于澳大利亚布里斯班的一项队列研究,横断面分析纳入3966名参与者(平均年龄58.2岁,女性57.6%),纵向分析纳入2846名参与者(随访3年)。虚弱指数(FI)是一个由32个项目组成的综合评分,连续使用(范围0-1),分为虚弱(FI > 0.35)和非虚弱。采用相对社会经济劣势指数(一种区域级综合指数)来衡量邻里劣势,并将其分为三类。拟合了双水平混合效应线性和逻辑回归模型,通过对区域的随机截取来解释区域水平的聚类,并调整了人口变量和个人水平的社会经济地位。在横断面分析中,11%的参与者身体虚弱。与低弱势社区居民相比,中等和高度弱势社区居民的脆弱程度更高,身体虚弱的几率也更大(OR = 1.54 [95% CI 1.13, 2.09]和OR = 2.86[2.11, 3.88])。在纵向分析中,相对于低劣势社区,居住在中等和高度劣势社区与FI得分的增加显著相关。在随访中,5%的参与者出现了偶发性虚弱。居住在高度弱势社区的儿童发生脆弱性的几率显著更高(OR = 1.75[1.08, 2.86])。弱势社区的中老年居民比优势社区的中老年居民更容易身体虚弱,并且在3年内变得虚弱。减少脆弱的社区一级干预措施应针对弱势社区。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine
Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
3.00%
发文量
105
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信