4.6 Article

Disability Trends Among Older Americans: National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 1988-1994 and 1999-2004

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 100, Issue 1, Pages 100-107

Publisher

AMER PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.157388

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute on Aging [R01 AG 023347, P30 AG 172365]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [R01AG023347] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. We investigated trends in disability among older Americans from 1988 through 2004 to test the hypothesis that more recent cohorts show increased burdens of disability. Methods. We used data from 2 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (1988-1994 and 1999-2004) to assess time trends in basic activities of daily living, instrumental activities, mobility, and functional limitations for adults aged 60 years and older. We assessed whether changes could be explained by sociodemographic, body weight, or behavioral factors. Results. With the exception of functional limitations, significant increases in each type of disability were seen over time among respondents aged 60 to 69 years, independent of sociodemographic characteristics, health status, relative weight, and health behaviors. Significantly greater increases occurred among non-Whites and persons who were obese or overweight (2 of the fastest-growing subgroups within this population). We detected no significant trends among respondents aged 70 to 79 years; in the oldest group (aged >= 80 years), time trends suggested lower prevalence of functional limitations among more recent cohorts. Conclusions. Our results have significant and sobering implications: older Americans face increased disability, and society faces increased costs to meet the health care needs of these disabled Americans. (Am J Public Health, 2010;100: 100-107. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.157388)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available