The Association of Perceived Neighborhood Walkability and Environmental Pollution With Frailty Among Community-dwelling Older Adults in Korean Rural Areas: A Cross-sectional Study

Sarcopenia is associated with adverse health outcomes among older individuals. However, little is known about its association with neighborhood environmental factors. We explored the relationship between sarcopenia and perceived neighborhood environmental factors among community-dwelling older adults aged 70–84 years. We analyzed 1778 participants (mean age of 75.9 ± 3.8 years; 54.0% women) who lived in urban areas and underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry from the Korean Frailty and Aging Cohort Study. Sarcopenia was defined according to the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2019 definition. Perceived neighborhood environmental factors were assessed using the Environmental Module of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ-E). In the multivariate analysis, compared to the fifth quintile of the IPAQ-E score, the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for sarcopenia in the first, second, third, and fourth quintiles were 2.13 (1.40–3.24), 1.72 (1.12–2.64), 1.75 (1.15–2.66), and 1.62 (1.06–2.47), respectively. These neighborhood environmental characteristics were linked with an increased likelihood of sarcopenia: no public transportation access (OR = 2.04; 95% CI = 1.19–3.48), poor recreational facilities access (OR = 1.39; 95% CI = 1.01–1.90), absence of destination (OR = 1.53; 95% CI = 1.06–2.20), many hill hazards (OR = 1.36; 95% CI = 1.03–1.78), and lack of traffic safety (OR = 1.35; 95% CI = 1.02–1.78). Thus, better neighborhood environmental strategies may help prevent sarcopenia among urban-dwelling older adults.

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived Neighborhood Environment Associated with Sarcopenia in Urban-Dwelling Older Adults: The Korean Frailty and Aging Cohort Study (KFACS)

Seo

Kim

Shin

et al. 2021

“…The score ranges from 0 to 15, with a higher score indicating poorer health status. Those scoring 4 or above were classified as frail, and the classification is commonly used in previous studies [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frailty Status and Transport Disadvantage: Comparison of Older Adults’ Travel Behaviours between Metropolitan, Suburban, and Rural Areas of Japan

Abe

Kitamura

Seino

et al. 2020

This study examined differences in older adults’ travel behaviours by frailty status in metropolitan, suburban, and rural areas of Japan. Data were collected from 9104 older adults (73.5 ± 5.7 years; 51% women; 19% frail) living in metropolitan (n = 5032), suburban (n = 2853), and rural areas (n = 1219) of Japan. Participants reported if they walked, cycled, drove a car, rode a car as a passenger, and used public transportation (PT) once per week or more. A standardised questionnaire was used to assess frailty status. We conducted logistic regression analysis to calculate the odds ratios of using each travel mode by frailty status stratified by locality. Relative to non-frail participants, frail participants were less likely to walk and drive a car in all three areas. Frail participants had significantly higher odds of being a car passenger in the suburban (OR = 1.73 (95% CI: 1.32, 2.25)) and rural areas (OR = 1.61 (1.10, 2.35)) but not in the metropolitan area (OR = 1.08 (0.87, 1.33)). This study found that frail older adults living in suburban and rural areas tended to rely more on cars driven by someone else, suggesting that transport disadvantage is more pronounced in suburban and rural areas than in metropolitan areas.

“…Studies have also shown that age-friendly communities are positively associated with life satisfaction [ 20 ], good self-rated health and a lower likelihood of functional limitations [ 21 , 22 , 23 ], and mental health [ 24 , 25 ]. Although previous studies have demonstrated that some community features, including walkability, green space, and social capital, are negatively related to frailty [ 26 , 27 ], to our knowledge, there is no research on the relationship between holistic assessment including individual- and community-level of age-friendliness of communities (AFC) and frailty. To fill this gap, the current study examined the relationship between holistic AFC and frailty in a large sample of older Chinese people.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association between Age-Friendliness of Communities and Frailty among Older Adults: A Multilevel Analysis

Chen

Wang

et al. 2022

An age-friendly environment is one of the measures of healthy aging. However, there is scarce evidence of the relationship between the age-friendliness of communities (AFC) and frailty status among Chinese older adults. This study aims to examine this relationship using a multilevel analysis with the data of a cross-sectional study conducted among 10,958 older adults living in 43 communities in four cities in China. The validated Age-friendly Community Evaluation Scale and Chinese frailty screening-10 Scale (CFS-10) were used to measure AFC and Frailty. Multilevel regression analyses were performed to examine the relationship between the AFC in two assessments of individual- and community-level and frailty status. After controlling for individual-level socio-demographic, health status, and lifestyle variables, compared with older adults in the lowest quartile of the individual-level perception of AFC, the frailty odds ratios for those in the top three quartiles were 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56–0.83), 0.75 (95% CI: 0.61–0.91), and 0.56 (95% CI: 0.48–0.74). However, there was no association between the community-level AFC and frailty. A higher level of age-friendliness in the community is associated with lower frailty odds. Therefore, building age-friendly communities may be an important measure to prevent frailty among Chinese older adults.