4.7 Article

Race, Socioeconomic Resources, and Late-Life Mobility and Decline: Findings From the Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/gerona/glr102

关键词

Race disparities; Functional limitations; SES; Disability

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [N01-AG-6-2101, N01-AG-6-2103, N01-AG-6-2106]
  2. National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging
  3. National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities [P60MD000214-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. This study examines the relationship between race and mobility over 5 years in initially well-functioning older adults and evaluates how a broad set of socioeconomic status indicators affect this relationship. Methods. Data were from 2,969 black and white participants aged 70-79 from the Health, Aging, and Body Composition study. Mobility parameters included self-reported capacity to walk a quarter mile and climb 10 steps and usual gait speed. Incident mobility limitation was defined as reported difficulty walking a quarter mile or climbing 10 steps at two consecutive semiannual assessments. Gait speed decline was defined as a 4% reduction in speed per year. Results. At baseline, even though all participants were free of mobility limitation, blacks had slower walking speed than their white counterparts, which was not explained by poverty, education, reading level, or income adequacy. After 5 years, accounting for age, site, and baseline mobility, blacks were more likely to develop mobility limitation than whites. Adjusting for prevalent conditions at baseline eliminated this difference in women; controlling for education eliminated this difference in men. No differences in gait speed decline were identified. Conclusions. Higher rates of mobility loss observed in older blacks relative to older whites appear to be a function of both poorer initial mobility status and existing health conditions particularly for women. Education may also play a role especially for men.

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

4.7
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