4.5 Article

Gender, self-rated health and functional decline among community-dwelling older adults

期刊

ARCHIVES OF GERONTOLOGY AND GERIATRICS
卷 77, 期 -, 页码 174-183

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.archger.2018.05.010

关键词

Gender; Functional declines; Instrumental activities of daily living; Marital status; Self-rated health; Health- and social-care policy

资金

  1. Lingnan University, Hong Kong through its Studentship Awards for Research Postgraduates [RPD1129310]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This paper examines the association between self-rated health (SRH) and functional decline (FD) in older Ghanaian cohorts and investigates whether the effect differs by gender and also modified by marital status. Methods: The study used cross-sectional survey data (N = 1200) from an Aging, Health, Psychological Wellbeing and Health-seeking Behavior Study (AHPWHB) study conducted in between August 2016 and January 2017. A four-level gendered-stratified logic modeling estimated the SRH-FD association and the interaction terms. Results: Overall, 23% of male respondents and 34% of women revealed significant FD < 0.001). The fully- adjusted model showed that SRH status was a strong predictor of FD across genders but the effect was most pronounced among men. Compared with excellent/very good SRH, fair and poor SRH (beta = 0.160; p < 0.05) and (beta = 1.700; p < 0.001) for women and (beta = 2.202; p < 0.001) and (beta = 2.356; p < 0.001) for men respectively were significantly associated with increased FD. However, good (beta = - 1.760; p < 0.001), fair (beta = - 2.800; p < 0.001) and poor SRH (beta = - 2.088; p < 0.001) decreased FD if an older woman was married compared with unmarried women with excellent/very good SRH. Conclusion: The strength of SRH-FDs association largely differed with gender and also moderated by marital status for women. Improving the SRH and marital quality could be protective of functional abilities, independence and quality of life for older people.

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

4.5
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