文章摘要
杨帆,王双,覃海,谭柯,孙倩倩,王凌霄,聂双双,刘佳倪,陈杨,张敏,陈燕语.社区老年人衰弱状态的过渡及其恶化影响因素分析的前瞻性研究[J].中华流行病学杂志,2019,40(2):186-190
社区老年人衰弱状态的过渡及其恶化影响因素分析的前瞻性研究
Frailty progress and related factors in the elderly living in community: a prospective study
投稿时间:2018-06-13  
DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2019.02.012
中文关键词: 衰弱综合征;社区;过渡;危险因素
英文关键词: Frailty;Community;Progress;Risk factor
基金项目:四川省卫生和计划生育委员会重点课题(16ZD001);强生全球创新课题(H1312124)
作者单位E-mail
杨帆 四川大学华西医院老年医学中心, 成都 610041  
王双 四川大学华西医院老年医学中心, 成都 610041 wangs0211@hotmail.com 
覃海 都江堰市平义社区卫生服务中心 610000  
谭柯 四川大学华西医院老年医学中心, 成都 610041  
孙倩倩 四川大学华西医院老年医学中心, 成都 610041  
王凌霄 成都市第五人民医院老年科 611130  
聂双双 青岛大学附属中心医院全科医学科 266071  
刘佳倪 四川大学华西医院老年医学中心, 成都 610041  
陈杨 四川大学华西第四医院姑息医学科, 成都 610041  
张敏 四川省人民医院老年内分泌科, 成都 610072  
陈燕语 四川大学华西医院老年医学中心, 成都 610041  
摘要点击次数: 121
全文下载次数: 114
中文摘要:
      目的 探讨社区老年人衰弱状态的过渡情况,以及衰弱状态恶化的影响因素。方法 在四川省都江堰市平义社区建立≥ 65岁老年人队列,分别于2014年1月和2017年1月进行面对面问卷调查,内容包括衰弱状态、认知功能、营养状况和功能状态等。采用二元logistic回归分析衰弱状态恶化的影响因素。结果 2014年1月调查了653名老年人,2017年1月进行随访,146名失访,共对507名老年人进行分析。基线调查时衰弱和衰弱前期的患病率分别为11.2%(57人)和26.2%(133人)。3年后,205名(40.4%)老年人衰弱状态恶化,276名(54.5%)老年人保持不变,26名(5.1%)老年人衰弱状态改善。在校正基线衰弱状态后,失能(OR=8.27,95% CI:1.62~42.26)、视力障碍(OR=2.02,95% CI:1.27~3.22)、认知功能障碍(OR=1.94,95% CI:1.08~3.48)、自评健康状态差(OR=1.89,95% CI:1.07~3.31)、慢性疼痛(OR=1.57,95% CI:1.03~2.40)和年龄(OR=1.12,95% CI:1.08~1.17)是衰弱状态恶化的危险因素;而超重是衰弱状态恶化的保护因素(OR=0.54,95% CI:0.34~0.85)。结论 衰弱是一种动态综合征,失能、视力障碍、认知功能障碍、自评健康状态差、慢性疼痛和年龄是衰弱状态恶化的独立危险因素,而超重是其保护因素。
英文摘要:
      Objective To investigate frailty progress status and related factors in the elderly living in communities. Methods A cohort of elderly people aged 65 and over in Pingyi community of Dujiangyan, Sichuan province, was established. Face-to-face questionnaire survey was conducted by trained interviewers. The frailty status, cognitive function, nutrition status and other functions of the subjects surveyed were evaluated at baseline survey and during follow-up. The socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of the subjects surveyed were assessed at baseline survey. Binary logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with frailty progress. Results A total of 653 elderly people were surveyed in January 2014, and 507 elderly people were followed up while 146 elderly people terminated further follow-up in January 2017. The prevalence rates of frailty and pre-frailty at baseline survey were 11.2% (n=57) and 26.2% (n=133), respectively. After 3 years, 205 subjects (40.4%) surveyed experienced frailty progress, 276 (54.5%) remained to be in frailty state at baseline survey, and 26 (5.1%) had improvement. Disability (OR=8.27, 95% CI:1.62-42.26), visual problem (OR=2.02, 95% CI:1.27-3.22), cognitive impairment (OR=1.94, 95% CI:1.08-3.48), poor self-rated health (OR=1.89, 95% CI:1.07-3.31), chronic pain (OR=1.57, 95% CI:1.03-2.40) and older age (OR=1.12, 95% CI:1.08-1.17) were independently associated with the progress of frailty. In contract, overweight was a protective factor (OR=0.54, 95% CI:0.34-0.85). Conclusions Frailty is a dynamic syndrome affected by several socio-demographic factors and geriatric factors. The results of the study can be used in the prevention of frailty progress in the elderly in communities.
查看全文   Html全文     查看/发表评论  下载PDF阅读器
关闭