4.2 Article

Body mass index and functional status in community dwelling older Turkish males

期刊

AGING MALE
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 228-232

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/13685538.2015.1061493

关键词

Body mass index; functionality; male; nutrition; older people

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Disability is utmost important on an aging population's health. Obesity is associated with increased risk for disability. On-the-other-hand, higher-BMI is reported as associated with better functionality in older people in some reports defined as obesity paradox. There is some evidence on differential relationship between body weight status and functionality by living setting gender, and different populations. We studied the relation between body mass index and functionality in Turkish community dwelling older males accounting for the most confounding factors: age, multimorbidity, polypharmacy and nutritional status. This is a cross-sectional study in a geriatric outpatient clinic of a university hospital. Functionality was assessed with evaluation of activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) scales. Nutrition was assessed by mini-nutritional assessment test. Two hundred seventy-four subjects comprised our study cohort. Mean age was 74.4 +/- 7.1 years, BMI was 25.8 +/- 4.4kg/m(2). Linear regression analysis revealed significant and independent association of lower BMI with higher ADL and IADL scores (B=0.047 and B=0.128, respectively) (p<0.05) and better nutritional status (B=1.94 and B=3.05, respectively) (p<0.001) but not with the total number of medications. Higher IADL score was associated with younger age and lower total number of diseases (B=0.121, B=0.595, respectively) (p<0.05) while ADL was not. We suggest that lower BMI is associated with better functional status in Turkish community-dwelling male older people. Our study recommends longitudinal studies with higher participants from different populations, genders and living settings are needed to comment more.

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

4.2
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