4.6 Article

Factors Associated with Accurate Recall of Prior Disability in Older Persons

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 57, 期 10, 页码 1897-1901

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02478.x

关键词

aged; cohort studies; risk factors; disability evaluation; activities of daily living

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [R37AG17560, R01AG022993, K24AG021507]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES To identify the factors associated with accurate recall of prior disability. DESIGN Cohort study. SETTING Greater New Haven, Connecticut. PARTICIPANTS Ninety-two participants, included in each of two analytical samples, who were nondisabled at the present time in four essential activities of daily living (ADLs; bathing, dressing, transferring, and walking) but who had had at least 1 month of disability during the prior year as determined from monthly telephone interviews. MEASUREMENTS Participants who did not need help from another person at the present time were asked to recall whether they had needed help from another person to complete the relevant ADL at any time during the previous 12 months. RESULTS Forty-five (48.9%) and 46 (50.0%) of the 92 participants accurately recalled having had disability in the prior year in the first and second analytical samples, respectively. Having at least a high school education was the only factor independently associated with accurate recall in the first analytical sample, with an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 3.03 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.11-8.31), whereas a composite disability scale that considered the timing and severity of prior disability was the only factor independently associated with accurate recall in the second analytic sample (AOR=5.38, 95% CI=1.81-16.1). CONCLUSION The results of the current study, coupled with those of previous studies, suggest potential strategies that could be used to more completely and accurately ascertain the occurrence of disability in older persons.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据