4.5 Article

Chronic conditions and the risk of long-term institutionalization among older people

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 77-84

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckm025

关键词

chronic disease; follow-up study; institutionalization; older adults; population based

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: As the public expenditure on long-term care is likely to increase with the ageing of the population, identifying chronic medical conditions associated with the risk of long-term institutionalization is of particular interest. However, there is little systematic evidence showing how chronic medical conditions, other than dementia, affect the risk of entering into institutional care in the general older population. Methods: We used population-based follow-up data on Finnish older people aged 65 and over (n = 280 722), to estimate the impact of different chronic conditions on the risk of long-term institutionalization. Furthermore, we analysed which chronic conditions were more strongly associated with the risk of institutionalization than with the risk of death without institutionalization. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used. Results: Our results showed that dementia, Parkinsons disease, stroke, depressive symptoms, other mental health problems, hip fracture and diabetes were strongly associated with increased risk of long-term institutionalization, independent of socio-demographic confounders and the presence of other chronic conditions. All these conditions raised the risk of institutionalization by 50% or more. Dementia, Parkinsons disease, stroke and mental health problems were more strongly associated with the risk of institutionalization than with the risk of death without institutionalization. Conclusions: Overall, these results show that the future demand for institutional care depends not only on the ageing of the population but also on the development of the prevalence and severity of chronic conditions associated with institutionalization.

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