Carmen-Lucia Curcio, Manuel Pérez-Trujillo, Cristiano Gomes, Ricardo Guerra, Néstor Duque-Méndez
{"title":"在不同情况下识别老年人生活空间移动受限的临界值:国际老龄人口流动性研究","authors":"Carmen-Lucia Curcio, Manuel Pérez-Trujillo, Cristiano Gomes, Ricardo Guerra, Néstor Duque-Méndez","doi":"10.1007/s12126-023-09553-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>different populations have different averages of life-space assessment scores and defining cutoff values of clinical significance by each population should take into consideration. Different cutoffs to define restricted life space have been reported. The most common is a score of 60 points. There are other cutoffs derived from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and used to classify older adults according to their ability in activities of daily living (ADLs) (52.3 points) or instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) (56 points); other cutoffs are specialized for people with cognitive impairment (26.75 points) or people with spinal cord injury who need mobility aids (78.5 points). The aims were to identify cutoff points of Life Space Assessment (LSA) in older adults in different sites and to determine the relationship of the cutoff scores with mobility disability and depression. The study population was composed of community-dwelling adults aged 65–74 years who were not institutionalized. An ROC analysis was constructed, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to identify the optimal cutoff that discriminates life-space restriction for each city. Logistic regressions were executed by site to comprehend the association among restricted LSA and mobility disability and depression. In total, 1890 participants were included in the analyses (52.38% women, 37.19% mobility disability and 21.32% had depression). Canada cities had the highest cutoff, while Tirana and Natal had the lowest cutoff (< 50). Kingston was the site with the highest association between life-space restriction and mobility disability (OR 5.4, 95% CI 2.9–10). Saint-Hyacinthe, Tirana, and Manizales had significant associations between depression and restricted life space (OR 3.25, 95% CI 1.53–6.89, OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.88–5.24, and OR 3.99, 95% CI 2.28–6.98, respectively). Different cutoffs to define restricted life-space have been identified in elderly people at different sites. The analysis of the relationship between the restricted life space and personal characteristics like depression and mobility disability supported these findings. The groupings produced by the cutoff points for each site showed notable variations. These findings emphasize the importance of population-based cutoffs to improve the general applicability of LSM criteria and take into consideration the importance of site-specific approaches.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51665,"journal":{"name":"Ageing International","volume":"49 2","pages":"374 - 389"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12126-023-09553-6.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cutoffs to Identify Restricted Life-space Mobility in Older Adults Across Different Contexts: The International Mobility in Aging Study\",\"authors\":\"Carmen-Lucia Curcio, Manuel Pérez-Trujillo, Cristiano Gomes, Ricardo Guerra, Néstor Duque-Méndez\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12126-023-09553-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>different populations have different averages of life-space assessment scores and defining cutoff values of clinical significance by each population should take into consideration. Different cutoffs to define restricted life space have been reported. The most common is a score of 60 points. There are other cutoffs derived from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and used to classify older adults according to their ability in activities of daily living (ADLs) (52.3 points) or instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) (56 points); other cutoffs are specialized for people with cognitive impairment (26.75 points) or people with spinal cord injury who need mobility aids (78.5 points). The aims were to identify cutoff points of Life Space Assessment (LSA) in older adults in different sites and to determine the relationship of the cutoff scores with mobility disability and depression. The study population was composed of community-dwelling adults aged 65–74 years who were not institutionalized. An ROC analysis was constructed, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to identify the optimal cutoff that discriminates life-space restriction for each city. Logistic regressions were executed by site to comprehend the association among restricted LSA and mobility disability and depression. In total, 1890 participants were included in the analyses (52.38% women, 37.19% mobility disability and 21.32% had depression). Canada cities had the highest cutoff, while Tirana and Natal had the lowest cutoff (< 50). Kingston was the site with the highest association between life-space restriction and mobility disability (OR 5.4, 95% CI 2.9–10). Saint-Hyacinthe, Tirana, and Manizales had significant associations between depression and restricted life space (OR 3.25, 95% CI 1.53–6.89, OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.88–5.24, and OR 3.99, 95% CI 2.28–6.98, respectively). Different cutoffs to define restricted life-space have been identified in elderly people at different sites. The analysis of the relationship between the restricted life space and personal characteristics like depression and mobility disability supported these findings. The groupings produced by the cutoff points for each site showed notable variations. These findings emphasize the importance of population-based cutoffs to improve the general applicability of LSM criteria and take into consideration the importance of site-specific approaches.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51665,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ageing International\",\"volume\":\"49 2\",\"pages\":\"374 - 389\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12126-023-09553-6.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ageing International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12126-023-09553-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ageing International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12126-023-09553-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
不同人群有不同的生命空间评估平均分,因此应考虑到不同人群的临床意义。有报告称,生命空间受限的定义有不同的临界值。最常见的是 60 分。还有一些截断值是通过接收器操作特征(ROC)分析得出的,用于根据老年人的日常生活活动能力(ADLs)(52.3 分)或工具性日常生活活动能力(IADLs)(56 分)对其进行分类;还有一些截断值专门用于认知障碍患者(26.75 分)或需要助行器的脊髓损伤患者(78.5 分)。研究的目的是确定不同地点老年人生活空间评估(LSA)的临界点,并确定临界点分数与行动不便和抑郁的关系。研究对象为居住在社区的 65-74 岁非住院老年人。我们构建了 ROC 分析,并计算了曲线下面积(AUC),以确定每个城市区分生活空间限制的最佳临界值。为了理解生活空间受限与行动不便和抑郁之间的关系,我们按地点进行了逻辑回归。共有 1890 名参与者参与了分析(其中女性占 52.38%,行动不便者占 37.19%,抑郁症患者占 21.32%)。加拿大城市的分界线最高,而地拉那和纳塔尔的分界线最低(50)。金斯顿是生活空间受限与行动残疾关联度最高的城市(OR 5.4,95% CI 2.9-10)。圣海辛特、地拉那和马尼萨莱斯的抑郁症与生活空间受限之间存在显著关联(OR 3.25,95% CI 1.53-6.89;OR 3.14,95% CI 1.88-5.24;OR 3.99,95% CI 2.28-6.98)。在不同的地点,老年人的生活空间受限定义的临界值不同。对生活空间受限与抑郁和行动不便等个人特征之间关系的分析支持了这些发现。每个地点的分界点所产生的分组显示出明显的差异。这些发现强调了基于人群的临界点对于提高生活空间管理标准的普遍适用性的重要性,同时也考虑到了因地制宜的方法的重要性。
Cutoffs to Identify Restricted Life-space Mobility in Older Adults Across Different Contexts: The International Mobility in Aging Study
different populations have different averages of life-space assessment scores and defining cutoff values of clinical significance by each population should take into consideration. Different cutoffs to define restricted life space have been reported. The most common is a score of 60 points. There are other cutoffs derived from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and used to classify older adults according to their ability in activities of daily living (ADLs) (52.3 points) or instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) (56 points); other cutoffs are specialized for people with cognitive impairment (26.75 points) or people with spinal cord injury who need mobility aids (78.5 points). The aims were to identify cutoff points of Life Space Assessment (LSA) in older adults in different sites and to determine the relationship of the cutoff scores with mobility disability and depression. The study population was composed of community-dwelling adults aged 65–74 years who were not institutionalized. An ROC analysis was constructed, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to identify the optimal cutoff that discriminates life-space restriction for each city. Logistic regressions were executed by site to comprehend the association among restricted LSA and mobility disability and depression. In total, 1890 participants were included in the analyses (52.38% women, 37.19% mobility disability and 21.32% had depression). Canada cities had the highest cutoff, while Tirana and Natal had the lowest cutoff (< 50). Kingston was the site with the highest association between life-space restriction and mobility disability (OR 5.4, 95% CI 2.9–10). Saint-Hyacinthe, Tirana, and Manizales had significant associations between depression and restricted life space (OR 3.25, 95% CI 1.53–6.89, OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.88–5.24, and OR 3.99, 95% CI 2.28–6.98, respectively). Different cutoffs to define restricted life-space have been identified in elderly people at different sites. The analysis of the relationship between the restricted life space and personal characteristics like depression and mobility disability supported these findings. The groupings produced by the cutoff points for each site showed notable variations. These findings emphasize the importance of population-based cutoffs to improve the general applicability of LSM criteria and take into consideration the importance of site-specific approaches.
期刊介绍:
As a quarterly peer-reviewed journal that has existed for over three decades, Ageing International serves all professionals who deal with complex ageing issues. The journal is dedicated to improving the life of ageing populations worldwide through providing an intellectual forum for communicating common concerns, exchanging analyses and discoveries in scientific research, crystallizing significant issues, and offering recommendations in ageing-related service delivery and policy making. Besides encouraging the submission of high-quality research and review papers, Ageing International seeks to bring together researchers, policy analysts, and service program administrators who are committed to reducing the ''implementation gap'' between good science and effective service, between evidence-based protocol and culturally suitable programs, and between unique innovative solutions and generalizable policies. For significant issues that are common across countries, Ageing International will organize special forums for scholars and investigators from different disciplines to present their regional perspectives as well as to provide more comprehensive analysis. The editors strongly believe that such discourse has the potential to foster a wide range of coordinated efforts that will lead to improvements in the quality of life of older persons worldwide. Abstracted and Indexed in:
ABI/INFORM, Academic OneFile, Academic Search, CSA/Proquest, Current Abstracts, EBSCO, Ergonomics Abstracts, Expanded Academic, Gale, Google Scholar, Health Reference Center Academic, OCLC, PsychINFO, PsyARTICLES, SCOPUS, Social Science Abstracts, and Summon by Serial Solutions.