PREVALENCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOMEBOUNDNESS AMONG COMMUNITY-LIVING OLDER ADULTS

DOI Web Site PubMed 18 Citations 30 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
  • WATANABE Shuichiro
    Graduate School of International Studies, Obirin University

Bibliographic Information

Other Title
  • 地域高齢者における“タイプ別”閉じこもりの出現頻度とその特徴
  • チイキ コウレイシャ ニ オケル タイプ ベツ トジコモリ ノ シュツゲン ヒンド ト ソノ トクチョウ

Search this article

Abstract

Background Little is known about the epidemiologic features of different types of homeboundness among the elderly.<br/>Purpose  This cross-sectional study examined prevalence and characteristics of “type 1” and “type 2” homeboundness (see definitions below) among community-living older adults.<br/>Methods The subjects comprised all residents aged 65 years and over living in Yoita, Niigata Prefecture, and Hatoyama, Saitama Prefecture. Subject data on sociodemographics, and physical, mental and social functioning were collected through in-person interview. Persons were defined as being homebound if he/she went outdoors only 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, 4, or 5). “Type 1” homebound persons included those who could not get out into the neighborhood without assistance (i.e, levels 3, 4, or 5). “Type 2” included those who were homebound, though they could get out at least into the neighborhood unassisted (i.e., levels 1 or 2). We focused on characteristics of “type 1” and “type 2” homeboundness as compared with those of respective controls, ie., non-homebound persons within the same mobility categories.<br/>Results Out of the eligible subjects (1,588 in Yoita, and 1,135 in Hatoyama), 1,544 and 1,002 persons participated in the survey (response rates of 97.2% and 88.3%, respectively). Among the participants, “type 1” and “type 2” homeboundness was found for 4.1% and 5.4%, respectively, in Yoita, and 3.3% and 6.8% in Hatoyama. After adjustment for potential confounders such as age, gender and mobility level, we found a significant regional difference in the prevalence of “type 2” but not of “type 1” (OR of “type 2” for Hatoyama/Yoita 1.44; 95%CI 1.02-2.03). Both types of homeboundness increased with advancing age; “type 1” and “type 2” featured in over 10% of persons aged at least 85 years and 80 years, respectively. Even after controlling for potential confounders, “type 2” showed a higher prevalence with walking disability and incontinence, and reported lower self-rated health, more depressed mood, lower functional capacity and lower social functioning. “Type 1” showed a higher prevalence with fear of falls, but a lower prevalence with basic ADL disability and a high score for Intellectual Activity, indicating reduced self-efficacy.<br/>Conclusions Prevalence of “type 1” and “type 2” homeboundness among community-living older adults differs depending on the residential area and age of the subjects. A substantial proportion of “type 2” homebound persons are at high risk of functional decline, indicating that “type 2” as well as “type 1” homebound persons need care-preventive programs.

Journal

Citations (18)*help

See more

References(30)*help

See more

Related Projects

See more

Keywords

Details 詳細情報について

Report a problem

Back to top