PREDICTORS FOR THE ONSET OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOMEBOUNDNESS AMONG COMMUNITY-LIVING OLDER ADULTS   TWO-YEAR PROSPECTIVE STUDY

DOI Web Site PubMed 17 Citations 31 References
  • SHINKAI Shoji
    Community Health Research Group, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology
  • FUJITA Koji
    Community Health Research Group, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology
  • FUJIWARA Yoshinori
    Community Health Research Group, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology
  • KUMAGAI Shu
    Community Health Research Group, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology
  • AMANO Hidenori
    Community Health Research Group, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology
  • YOSHIDA Hiroto
    Community Health Research Group, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology
  • WANG Dou Gui
    Community Health Research Group, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology

Bibliographic Information

Other Title
  • 地域高齢者におけるタイプ別閉じこもり発生の予測因子　2年間の追跡研究から
  • チイキ コウレイシャ ニ オケル タイプ ベツ トジコモリ ハッセイ ノ ヨソク インシ 2ネンカン ノ ツイセキ ケンキュウ カラ

Search this article

Abstract

Background Little is known about predictors for the onset of different types of homeboundness among community-living older adults.<br/>Purpose This 2-year prospective study examined predictors for the onset of “type 1” and “type2” homeboundness (see definitions below) among community-living older adults.<br/>Methods Study subjects comprised all residents aged 65 years and over living in Yoita town, Niigata, Japan, who answered the baseline (2000) and follow-up (2002) surveys. Persons were defined as being homebound if he/she went outdoors once a week or less often. Homeboundness was further classified into “type 1” or “type 2”, based on the hierarchical mobility level classification (levels 1 or 2 vs. levels 3 or over). “Type 1” homebound persons included those who could not get out into the neighborhood without assistance (i.e., level 3 or over). “Type 2” included those who were homebound, though they could get out at least into the neighborhood unassisted (i.e., level 1 or 2). A stepwise, multiple logistic regression model was used to identify the most parsimonious combination of risk factors for each type of homeboundness.<br/>Results Out of 1,322 persons who were level 1,2 non-homebound at the baseline, 77.6% remained as level 1,2 non-homebound (n=1,026), but 1.7% were “type 1” homebound (n=22), and 4.8% were “type 2” homebound (n=66) at follow-up. The final model for prediction of “type 1” homeboundness at follow-up included: advanced age (OR for 5 year-increment: 2.10; 95%CI: 1.36-3.24), not having a job (OR: 4.42; 95%CI: 1.21-16.2), unable to walk 1 km (OR: 4.24; 95%CI: 1.37-13.1), and a low cognitive function identified as MMSE <24 (OR: 5.22; 95%CI: 1.98-13.8). The final model for prediction of “type 2” homeboundness at follow-up included: advanced age (OR for 5 year-increment: 1.65; 95%CI: 1.32-2.06), a depressive mode indicated by a GDS short version score >5 (OR: 2.18; 95%CI: 1.23-3.88), a low cognitive function (OR: 2.72; 95% CI: 1.47-5.05), not having close friends (OR: 2.30; 95%CI: 1.08-4.87), and not having a walking or calisthetics habit (OR: 2.21; 95%CI: 1.26-3.86).<br/>Conclusions Reduced physical and mental functioning contribute to the subsequent occurrence of “type 1” homeboundness. Additionally, psychosocial factors are independent predictors of “type 2” homeboundness. These results suggest that different public health strategies might be required for prevention of the different types of homeboundness in Japanese older adults.

Journal

Citations (17)*help

See more

References(31)*help

See more

Related Projects

See more

Keywords

Details 詳細情報について

Report a problem

Back to top