Joint Association of Physical Frailty and Self-Rated Health With Mortality Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults.

Chenkai Wu, Yichen Xu, Junhan Tang, Hua Liu, Qian-Li Xue
{"title":"Joint Association of Physical Frailty and Self-Rated Health With Mortality Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults.","authors":"Chenkai Wu, Yichen Xu, Junhan Tang, Hua Liu, Qian-Li Xue","doi":"10.1093/gerona/glad286","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The relationship between subjective and objective health is complex and not always matched. Although frailty and self-rated health (SRH) have been separately associated with adverse outcomes, their joint effects remained unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were 5 300 adults ≥60 years from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study in 2011. Frailty, measured by the validated physical frailty phenotype approach, was classified as nonfrail, prefrail, and frail. SRH was categorized into 3 groups: excellent/very good/good, fair, and poor/very poor. We used the Cox models to examine the independent and joint association of frailty and SRH with mortality. We used the interaction approach to determine whether the association of SRH with mortality differed by frailty. Subgroup analyses were conducted by depression and cognitive impairment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>About 8.1% of frail participants reported excellent/very good/good health; 21.2% of the nonfrail reported poor/very poor health. Prefrailty and frailty were associated with a 1.63- and 2.38-fold increase in the hazard of mortality than the nonfrail, respectively, after adjusting for SRH. Reporting fair and poor/very poor health was associated with a 29% and 100% increase in the hazard of mortality, respectively, after adjusting for frailty. No significant interaction was found. Prefrail and frail older adults with excellent/very good/good health had a similar mortality as the nonfrail with poor/very poor SRH. The association of SRH with mortality was less pronounced among individuals with depression or cognitive impairment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SRH is a potential marker of resilience among people living with frailty that may be a target for ameliorating health risks induced by frailty.</p>","PeriodicalId":94243,"journal":{"name":"The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11491745/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glad286","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The relationship between subjective and objective health is complex and not always matched. Although frailty and self-rated health (SRH) have been separately associated with adverse outcomes, their joint effects remained unclear.

Methods: Participants were 5 300 adults ≥60 years from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study in 2011. Frailty, measured by the validated physical frailty phenotype approach, was classified as nonfrail, prefrail, and frail. SRH was categorized into 3 groups: excellent/very good/good, fair, and poor/very poor. We used the Cox models to examine the independent and joint association of frailty and SRH with mortality. We used the interaction approach to determine whether the association of SRH with mortality differed by frailty. Subgroup analyses were conducted by depression and cognitive impairment.

Results: About 8.1% of frail participants reported excellent/very good/good health; 21.2% of the nonfrail reported poor/very poor health. Prefrailty and frailty were associated with a 1.63- and 2.38-fold increase in the hazard of mortality than the nonfrail, respectively, after adjusting for SRH. Reporting fair and poor/very poor health was associated with a 29% and 100% increase in the hazard of mortality, respectively, after adjusting for frailty. No significant interaction was found. Prefrail and frail older adults with excellent/very good/good health had a similar mortality as the nonfrail with poor/very poor SRH. The association of SRH with mortality was less pronounced among individuals with depression or cognitive impairment.

Conclusions: SRH is a potential marker of resilience among people living with frailty that may be a target for ameliorating health risks induced by frailty.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在社区居住的老年人中,身体虚弱和自评健康状况与死亡率的共同关系。
背景:主观健康和客观健康之间的关系很复杂,而且并不总是匹配的。虽然虚弱和自评健康(SRH)分别与不良结局相关,但它们的共同影响仍不明确:研究对象为 2011 年中国健康与退休纵向研究中 5300 名年龄≥60 岁的成年人。通过有效的体质虚弱表型法测量虚弱程度,将其分为非虚弱、预虚弱和虚弱。SRH分为三组:优/很好/好、一般和差/很差。我们使用 Cox 模型来检验虚弱和 SRH 与死亡率的独立关联和联合关联。我们使用交互作用法来确定 SRH 与死亡率的关系是否因虚弱程度而异。我们还按抑郁和认知障碍进行了分组分析:8.1%的体弱参与者报告健康状况极佳/非常好/良好;21.2%的非体弱参与者报告健康状况较差/非常差。在对 SRH 进行调整后,虚弱前期和虚弱比非虚弱者的死亡风险分别增加了 1.63 倍和 2.38 倍。在对虚弱程度进行调整后,报告健康状况一般和较差/极差分别与死亡率增加 29% 和 100% 有关。没有发现明显的交互作用。健康状况极好/非常好/良好的虚弱前和虚弱老年人的死亡率与自律健康状况差/非常差的非虚弱老年人的死亡率相似。在患有抑郁症或认知障碍的人中,自律健康与死亡率的关系不那么明显:结论:性健康和生殖健康是体弱者恢复能力的潜在标志,可作为改善体弱引起的健康风险的目标。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Disentangling Anemia in Frailty: Exploring the Role of Inflammation. Lipopolysaccharide-Induced Delirium-Like Behavior and Microglial Activation in Mice Correlate With Bispectral Electroencephalography. Inflammatory Indices and Their Associations with Postoperative Delirium. Metabolic signature of insulin resistance and risk of Alzheimer's disease. Higher-order disease interactions in multimorbidity measurement: marginal benefit over additive disease summation.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1