4.1 Article

Health and Economic Burden of Obesity in Elderly Individuals with Asthma in the United States

期刊

POPULATION HEALTH MANAGEMENT
卷 18, 期 3, 页码 186-191

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/pop.2014.0089

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The health and economic burden of obesity among elderly individuals with asthma has not been adequately studied. This study assessed the association between obesity and asthma among the elderly and examined the impact of obesity on asthma-related and total health care costs among elderly individuals with asthma. This was a retrospective analysis of the 2006-2010 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data. Individuals aged 65 years or older were included in the study. Individuals with asthma were identified by an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code of 493 or a Clinical Classification Code of 128. Individuals with a self-reported body mass index 30kg/m(2) were considered to be obese. Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between obesity and asthma. Generalized linear models with gamma distribution and log link were used to assess the relationship between obesity and asthma-related and total direct medical costs. All analyses were conducted while accounting for the complex survey design of MEPS. In all, 675 elderly individuals were identified as having asthma, 292 of whom were obese. Obese elderly individuals were more likely to suffer from asthma as compared to the nonobese (odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval [CI],1.37-2.12). Obesity was a significant predictor of asthma-related costs (: 0.537; 95% CI: 0.18-0.89; P= 0.003) and total health care costs (: 0.154; 95% CI: 0.08-0.23; P=0.001) among elderly individuals with asthma after controlling for sociodemographics and comorbidities. Appropriate weight management measures should be recommended to obese elderly individuals with asthma to improve asthma control and reduce health care costs. (Population Health Management 2015;18:186-191)

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

4.1
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