4.7 Article

Predictors of patterns of change in health-related quality of life in older women over 7 years: evidence from a prospective cohort study

期刊

AGE AND AGEING
卷 42, 期 3, 页码 312-318

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ageing/aft029

关键词

quality of life; ageing; prospective study; older people

资金

  1. Department of Health Policy Research Programme (England) [0090049]
  2. British Heart Foundation [PG/09/022]
  3. Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship for Career Development [FP7-PEOPLE-2010-IEF-273673]
  4. British Heart Foundation [PG/09/022/26739] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: the evaluation of the determinants of change over time in health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in older people is limited. This study aims to identify patterns of change in HR-QoL over 7 years and their determinants using data from the British Women's Heart and Health Study, a representative sample of older women (n = 4286). Methods: longitudinal latent class analysis was used to identify subpopulations of women with similar HR-QoL trajectories from 1999-2000 to 2007. HR-QoL was measured using the EQ-5D. Multivariate multinomial logistic regression was used to model the association of identified trajectories with baseline predictors after multiple imputation of missing data. Results: four distinct EQ-5D trajectories were suggested: high (19% of women), high decline (22%), intermediate (42%) and low decline (16%). Prevalent arthritis (OR = 13.4; 95% CI: 8.8, 20.5), diabetes (OR = 4.6; 95% CI: 1.5, 14.2) and obesity (OR = 3.9; 95% CI: 2.5, 6.0) were the strongest predicting health conditions of adverse changes in HR-QoL and physical activity the strongest predicting lifestyle factor (OR = 2.8; 95% CI: 2.0, 3.9). Conclusions: findings suggest that older women without obesity or pre-existing health conditions who undertake more physical activity are more likely to experience high HR-QoL, reinforcing the importance of these factors for healthy ageing.

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