日本老年人的生命空间移动性与虚弱:一项横断面研究

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
{"title":"日本老年人的生命空间移动性与虚弱:一项横断面研究","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jamda.2024.105232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Some studies reported a relationship between life-space mobility (LSM) and frailty assessed by physical aspects; however, a more comprehensive discussion of frailty is underdeveloped. In addition, previous studies have focused only on older Euro-American people. Therefore, we aimed to examine LSM-frailty relationships in community-dwelling older Japanese persons using physical and comprehensive frailty indices.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>A cross-sectional study.</p></div><div><h3>Setting and Participants</h3><p>We used the data of 8898 older adults from a baseline survey of the Kyoto-Kameoka Study in Japan.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The validated life-space assessment (LSA) was used to evaluate LSM and categorized it into quartiles. Two validated indices were used to evaluate frailty: the Kihon Checklist (KCL) and the simple Frailty Screening Index (FSI). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the relationships between LSM scores and frailty.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The mean age (SD) of the participants was 73.4 (6.3) years, and 53.3% were women. The mean LSM score of the study participants was 53.0. The prevalence of frailty by KCL and FSI was 40.7% and 16.8%, respectively. Significant differences between LSM score and frailty prevalence were observed [KCL: Q1, reference; Q2, odds ratio (OR) 0.53, 95% CI 0.45–0.62; Q3, OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.25–0.35; Q4: OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.18–0.26, <em>P</em> for trend &lt;.001; FSI: Q1, reference; Q2, OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.48–0.68; Q3: OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.31–0.46; Q4: OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.28–0.42, <em>P</em> for trend &lt;.001]. Similar results were observed when LSM scores were examined at 10-point intervals, with LSM and frailty exhibiting an L-shaped relationship. The LSM score dose-response curve at which the OR for frailty plateaued among older individuals was approximately 81–90 score.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions and Implications</h3><p>LSM score and frailty prevalence exhibited L-shaped relationships in community-dwelling older persons. This study's findings provide useful data for setting LSM targets for preventing frailty in community-dwelling older persons.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":17180,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Medical Directors Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Life-Space Mobility and Frailty in Older Japanese Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jamda.2024.105232\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Some studies reported a relationship between life-space mobility (LSM) and frailty assessed by physical aspects; however, a more comprehensive discussion of frailty is underdeveloped. In addition, previous studies have focused only on older Euro-American people. Therefore, we aimed to examine LSM-frailty relationships in community-dwelling older Japanese persons using physical and comprehensive frailty indices.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>A cross-sectional study.</p></div><div><h3>Setting and Participants</h3><p>We used the data of 8898 older adults from a baseline survey of the Kyoto-Kameoka Study in Japan.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The validated life-space assessment (LSA) was used to evaluate LSM and categorized it into quartiles. Two validated indices were used to evaluate frailty: the Kihon Checklist (KCL) and the simple Frailty Screening Index (FSI). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the relationships between LSM scores and frailty.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The mean age (SD) of the participants was 73.4 (6.3) years, and 53.3% were women. The mean LSM score of the study participants was 53.0. The prevalence of frailty by KCL and FSI was 40.7% and 16.8%, respectively. Significant differences between LSM score and frailty prevalence were observed [KCL: Q1, reference; Q2, odds ratio (OR) 0.53, 95% CI 0.45–0.62; Q3, OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.25–0.35; Q4: OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.18–0.26, <em>P</em> for trend &lt;.001; FSI: Q1, reference; Q2, OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.48–0.68; Q3: OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.31–0.46; Q4: OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.28–0.42, <em>P</em> for trend &lt;.001]. Similar results were observed when LSM scores were examined at 10-point intervals, with LSM and frailty exhibiting an L-shaped relationship. The LSM score dose-response curve at which the OR for frailty plateaued among older individuals was approximately 81–90 score.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions and Implications</h3><p>LSM score and frailty prevalence exhibited L-shaped relationships in community-dwelling older persons. This study's findings provide useful data for setting LSM targets for preventing frailty in community-dwelling older persons.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17180,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Medical Directors Association\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Medical Directors Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525861024006546\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Medical Directors Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525861024006546","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的一些研究报告称,生命空间移动性(LSM)与通过身体方面评估的虚弱程度之间存在关系;然而,关于虚弱程度的更全面的讨论还不充分。此外,以往的研究仅关注欧美老年人。因此,我们旨在使用体质和综合虚弱指数来研究居住在社区的日本老年人的 LSM 与虚弱之间的关系:设计:横断面研究:我们使用了日本京都龟冈研究基线调查中 8898 名老年人的数据:方法:使用经过验证的生活空间评估(LSA)来评估LSM,并将其分为四等分。评估虚弱程度时使用了两个经过验证的指数:Kihon 检查表(KCL)和简单的虚弱筛查指数(FSI)。多变量逻辑回归用于确定 LSM 分数与虚弱之间的关系:参与者的平均年龄(标清)为 73.4 (6.3)岁,53.3% 为女性。研究参与者的 LSM 平均得分为 53.0 分。根据 KCL 和 FSI,虚弱的发生率分别为 40.7% 和 16.8%。LSM 评分与虚弱患病率之间存在显著差异[KCL:Q1,参考值;Q2,几率比(OR)0.53,95% CI 0.45-0.62;Q3,OR 0.30,95% CI 0.25-0.35;Q4:OR为0.22,95% CI为0.18-0.26,P为趋势:在社区居住的老年人中,LSM 评分和虚弱患病率呈 L 型关系。这项研究的结果为制定预防社区老年人体弱的 LSM 目标提供了有用的数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Life-Space Mobility and Frailty in Older Japanese Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study

Objectives

Some studies reported a relationship between life-space mobility (LSM) and frailty assessed by physical aspects; however, a more comprehensive discussion of frailty is underdeveloped. In addition, previous studies have focused only on older Euro-American people. Therefore, we aimed to examine LSM-frailty relationships in community-dwelling older Japanese persons using physical and comprehensive frailty indices.

Design

A cross-sectional study.

Setting and Participants

We used the data of 8898 older adults from a baseline survey of the Kyoto-Kameoka Study in Japan.

Methods

The validated life-space assessment (LSA) was used to evaluate LSM and categorized it into quartiles. Two validated indices were used to evaluate frailty: the Kihon Checklist (KCL) and the simple Frailty Screening Index (FSI). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the relationships between LSM scores and frailty.

Results

The mean age (SD) of the participants was 73.4 (6.3) years, and 53.3% were women. The mean LSM score of the study participants was 53.0. The prevalence of frailty by KCL and FSI was 40.7% and 16.8%, respectively. Significant differences between LSM score and frailty prevalence were observed [KCL: Q1, reference; Q2, odds ratio (OR) 0.53, 95% CI 0.45–0.62; Q3, OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.25–0.35; Q4: OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.18–0.26, P for trend <.001; FSI: Q1, reference; Q2, OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.48–0.68; Q3: OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.31–0.46; Q4: OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.28–0.42, P for trend <.001]. Similar results were observed when LSM scores were examined at 10-point intervals, with LSM and frailty exhibiting an L-shaped relationship. The LSM score dose-response curve at which the OR for frailty plateaued among older individuals was approximately 81–90 score.

Conclusions and Implications

LSM score and frailty prevalence exhibited L-shaped relationships in community-dwelling older persons. This study's findings provide useful data for setting LSM targets for preventing frailty in community-dwelling older persons.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.10
自引率
6.60%
发文量
472
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: JAMDA, the official journal of AMDA - The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine, is a leading peer-reviewed publication that offers practical information and research geared towards healthcare professionals in the post-acute and long-term care fields. It is also a valuable resource for policy-makers, organizational leaders, educators, and advocates. The journal provides essential information for various healthcare professionals such as medical directors, attending physicians, nurses, consultant pharmacists, geriatric psychiatrists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, physical and occupational therapists, social workers, and others involved in providing, overseeing, and promoting quality
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信