Maturitas · 2023
Urinary incontinence and life-space activity/mobility additively increase the risk of incident disability among older adults.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nishimoto Kazuhei, Tsutsumimoto Kota, Doi Takehiko, Kurita Satoshi, Kiuchi Yuto, Shimada Hiroyuki
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To examine the associations of a combination of urinary incontinence (UI) and life-space activity/mobility with the risk of incident disability among community-dwelling older adults.
STUDY DESIGN: The participants were 12,808 older adults for the cross-sectional study and 12,516 older adults who completed the follow-up assessment.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: UI was assessed using a questionnaire. Life-space activity/mobility was evaluated using total, physical, and social scores on the Active Mobility Index (AMI). Participants were classified into four groups (high AMI total score + no UI; high AMI total score + UI; low AMI total score + no UI; low AMI total score + UI). Incident disability was extracted from the Japanese Long-Term Care System.
RESULTS: During the 24-month follow-up, 562 participants (4.5 %) developed disability. Those with a low AMI score + no UI (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95 % confidence interval, 1.07-1.71) and those with a low AMI score + UI (hazard ratio, 2.00; 95 % confidence interval, 1.56-2.56) had a higher risk of incident disability than those with a high AMI score + no UI in the follow-up analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: A combination of UI and low AMI score was associated with an increased risk of incident disability, whereas having UI but a high AMI score was not associated with an increased risk of incident disability. Our findings may help identify older adults at high risk of developing disabilities.
STUDY DESIGN: The participants were 12,808 older adults for the cross-sectional study and 12,516 older adults who completed the follow-up assessment.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: UI was assessed using a questionnaire. Life-space activity/mobility was evaluated using total, physical, and social scores on the Active Mobility Index (AMI). Participants were classified into four groups (high AMI total score + no UI; high AMI total score + UI; low AMI total score + no UI; low AMI total score + UI). Incident disability was extracted from the Japanese Long-Term Care System.
RESULTS: During the 24-month follow-up, 562 participants (4.5 %) developed disability. Those with a low AMI score + no UI (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95 % confidence interval, 1.07-1.71) and those with a low AMI score + UI (hazard ratio, 2.00; 95 % confidence interval, 1.56-2.56) had a higher risk of incident disability than those with a high AMI score + no UI in the follow-up analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: A combination of UI and low AMI score was associated with an increased risk of incident disability, whereas having UI but a high AMI score was not associated with an increased risk of incident disability. Our findings may help identify older adults at high risk of developing disabilities.