3.9 Article

Chronic diseases, multimorbidity, and handgrip strength among older adults from Southern Brazil

期刊

出版社

PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDADE CATOLICA CAMPINAS
DOI: 10.1590/1678-98652016000100005

关键词

Aging; Chronic disease; Hand strength

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Ensino Superior

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To investigate the association between various chronic diseases, multimorbidity, and handgrip strength in community dwelling older adults in Southern Brazil. Methods A cross-sectional study carried out with 477 older adults (60 years and older) who resided in Antonio Carlos, Santa Catarina state. Subjects aged 60-79 years were selected by probability sampling (n=343) and all subjects aged 80 years or older (n=134) were evaluated. Chronic diseases were identified by self-report. A mechanical dynamometer verified handgrip strength (i.e., the outcome). Adjustments variables were age, literacy, living arrangement, smoking, body mass index, cognitive function, and comorbid chronic diseases. Sex-stratified analyses were conducted with simple and multiple linear regression. Results A total of 270 women (73.2+/-8.8 years) and 207 men (73.3+/-9.0 years) were assessed. In the adjustment analysis, cancer (beta=-3.69; 95% CI=-6.97 to -0.41) and depression (beta=-1.65; 95% CI=-3.20 to -0.10) were associated with lower handgrip strength in women. For men, diabetes (beta=-5.30; 95% CI=-9.64 to -0.95), chronic lung disease (beta=-4.74; 95% CI=-7.98 to -1.50), and coronary heart disease (beta=-3.07; 95% CI=-5.98 to -0.16) were associated with lower handgrip strength values. There was an inverse trend between number of diseases and handgrip strength for men only. Conclusion The results showed an independent association between chronic diseases and handgrip strength. As such, handgrip strength is a valid measure to use for prevention or intervention in chronic disease and multimorbidity.

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

3.9
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