2020
DOI: 10.1007/s40520-020-01560-w
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The modified Healthy Aging Index is associated with mobility limitations and falls in a community-based sample of oldest old

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Selection bias is possible as participants were recruited from the health fora and not truly representative of the older adult population in the communities. Nonetheless, some community-based studies on falls [84][85][86][87] implemented a similar recruitment approach where it was difficult to enumerate all Table 8 Association between E 1 and gait speed in male and female * Indicates p ≤ 0.05, Adjusted covariates: Model 1 = Age, weight, smoking status, alcohol consumption, and use of walking devices; Model 2 = Model 1 + co-morbidities (dizziness, vestibular diseases, diabetes, and arthritis) Model 3 = Model 2 + markers of cardiovascular risk (natural-log-transformed levels of the use of anti-anxiety drugs, gender) Model 4 = Model 3 + BMI categories * Parameter estimates (β) can be interpreted as differences in mean gait speed (m/sec) for each increment of one standard deviation in the log-transformed E 1 among men (or women) † Parameter estimates (β) can be interpreted as differences in mean gait speed (m/sec) compared male (or female) subjects in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quartiles of E 1 to those in the lowest quartile Abbreviations: E 1 -Equality point for the regression lines of velocity and stride frequency on the VFD; SE, standard error…”
Section: Strength and Limitations Of The Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Selection bias is possible as participants were recruited from the health fora and not truly representative of the older adult population in the communities. Nonetheless, some community-based studies on falls [84][85][86][87] implemented a similar recruitment approach where it was difficult to enumerate all Table 8 Association between E 1 and gait speed in male and female * Indicates p ≤ 0.05, Adjusted covariates: Model 1 = Age, weight, smoking status, alcohol consumption, and use of walking devices; Model 2 = Model 1 + co-morbidities (dizziness, vestibular diseases, diabetes, and arthritis) Model 3 = Model 2 + markers of cardiovascular risk (natural-log-transformed levels of the use of anti-anxiety drugs, gender) Model 4 = Model 3 + BMI categories * Parameter estimates (β) can be interpreted as differences in mean gait speed (m/sec) for each increment of one standard deviation in the log-transformed E 1 among men (or women) † Parameter estimates (β) can be interpreted as differences in mean gait speed (m/sec) compared male (or female) subjects in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quartiles of E 1 to those in the lowest quartile Abbreviations: E 1 -Equality point for the regression lines of velocity and stride frequency on the VFD; SE, standard error…”
Section: Strength and Limitations Of The Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A universal set of interconnected health indicators has been pooled to quantify the extent of healthy aging, but previous indicators failed to capture the multidimensional conceptualization of health and the interlinkages between these indicators [4,9,10]. Healthy aging assessment starts with disease-based conceptualizations [11][12][13], which have been criticized for their narrow biomedical focus. Following the definition of healthy aging proposed by the WHO, function-based approaches have been developed, and the indicators of healthy aging are extended to include freedom from disability, high physical functioning, sound mental health conditions, freedom from sensory limitations, subjectively rated health, and sound social health [3,5,[14][15][16].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following the definition of healthy aging proposed by the WHO, function-based approaches have been developed, and the indicators of healthy aging are extended to include freedom from disability, high physical functioning, sound mental health conditions, freedom from sensory limitations, subjectively rated health, and sound social health [3,5,[14][15][16]. These approaches tend to conceptualize healthy aging as a cumulative score based on the total number of deficits present in a person, leaving open the question of measuring health interlinkages [11][12][13][14][15].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, the modified version of the HAI is still significantly and independently associated with adverse outcomes [6, 10]. However, whether the HAI is suitable for Chinese elderly adults remains an open question, and few studies have been conducted to evaluate the applicability of the HAI in the Chinese population [11, 12]. Wu et al [11] adopted the HAI in the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) and found that the Chinese Healthy Ageing Index was associated with a high risk of all-cause death and incident instrumental activities of daily living disability.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Wu et al [11] adopted the HAI in the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) and found that the Chinese Healthy Ageing Index was associated with a high risk of all-cause death and incident instrumental activities of daily living disability. Li et al [12] modified the HAI in community-dwelling older adults and found that a per unit increase in the modified HAI score was associated with low handgrip strength, slow gait speed, and lower extremity strength limitations. Considering the lack of studies validating the applicability of the HAI in China, we aimed to evaluate the association of the HAI with adverse outcomes (including all-cause mortality and functional disability) and validate whether the HAI was suitable for monitoring ageing status in the elderly population in China.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%