Limits...
Physical Functional Limitations among Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Older Adults: Associations with Socio-Demographic Factors and Health.

Gubhaju L, Banks E, MacNiven R, McNamara BJ, Joshy G, Bauman A, Eades SJ - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: In both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal participants, severe limitation was significantly associated with: being ≥70 vs <70 years old (aPRs 1.8, 1.3-2.4 and 5.3, 5.0-5.5, within Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal participants, respectively), none vs tertiary educational qualifications (aPRs 2.4, 1.7-3.3 and 3.1, 3.0-3.2), lower vs higher income (aPRs 6.6, 4.2-10.5 and 5.5, 5.2-5.8), current vs never-smoking (aPRs 2.0, 1.6-2.5 and 2.2, 2.1-2.3), obese vs normal weight (aPRs 1.7, 1.3-2.2 and 2.7, 2.7-2.8) and sitting for ≥7 vs <7 hours/day (aPRs 1.6, 1.2-2.0 and 1.6, 1.6-1.7).It was significantly higher in those with few vs many social contacts (aPRs 1.7, 1.4-2.0 and 1.4, 1.4-1.4) and with very high vs low psychological distress (aPRs 4.4, 3.6-5.4 and 5.7, 5.5-5.9).Effective management of chronic disease and reducing the prevalence of obesity and smoking are important areas for attention.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Aboriginal Health, Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne, 3004, Victoria, Australia.

ABSTRACT

Background: Australian Aboriginal people are disproportionately affected by physical disability; the reasons for this are unclear. This study aimed to quantify associations between severe physical functional limitations and socio-demographic and health-related factors among older Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal adults.

Methods: Questionnaire data from 1,563 Aboriginal and 226,802 non-Aboriginal participants aged ≥45 years from the Sax Institute's 45 and Up Study (New South Wales, Australia) were used to calculate age- and sex-adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) for severe limitation [MOS-PF score <60] according to socio-demographic and health-related factors.

Results: Overall, 26% (410/1563) of Aboriginal participants and 13% (29,569/226,802) of non-Aboriginal participants had severe limitations (aPR 2.8, 95%CI 2.5-3.0). In both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal participants, severe limitation was significantly associated with: being ≥70 vs <70 years old (aPRs 1.8, 1.3-2.4 and 5.3, 5.0-5.5, within Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal participants, respectively), none vs tertiary educational qualifications (aPRs 2.4, 1.7-3.3 and 3.1, 3.0-3.2), lower vs higher income (aPRs 6.6, 4.2-10.5 and 5.5, 5.2-5.8), current vs never-smoking (aPRs 2.0, 1.6-2.5 and 2.2, 2.1-2.3), obese vs normal weight (aPRs 1.7, 1.3-2.2 and 2.7, 2.7-2.8) and sitting for ≥7 vs <7 hours/day (aPRs 1.6, 1.2-2.0 and 1.6, 1.6-1.7). Severe limitations increased with increasing ill-health, with aPRs rising to 5-6 for ≥5 versus no chronic conditions. It was significantly higher in those with few vs many social contacts (aPRs 1.7, 1.4-2.0 and 1.4, 1.4-1.4) and with very high vs low psychological distress (aPRs 4.4, 3.6-5.4 and 5.7, 5.5-5.9).

Conclusions: Although the prevalence of severe physical limitation among Aboriginal people in this study is around three-fold that of non-Aboriginal people, the factors related to it are similar, indicating that Aboriginal people have higher levels of risk factors for and consequences of severe limitations. Effective management of chronic disease and reducing the prevalence of obesity and smoking are important areas for attention.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Questions included in the Medical Outcomes Study–Physical Functioning (MOS-PF) scale.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4589378&req=5

pone.0139364.g001: Questions included in the Medical Outcomes Study–Physical Functioning (MOS-PF) scale.

Mentions: The degree of physical functional limitation was determined using the Medical Outcomes Study–Physical Functioning (MOS-PF) scale [8, 9] that asks participants 10 questions based on whether their health limits them in performing daily activities to vigorous activities (Fig 1). Participants were given a choice of three responses for each question with a score allocated for each response: 1) Yes, limited a lot (score = 1) 2) Yes, limited a little (score = 2) and 3) No, not limited at all (score = 3). Participants could score a minimum of 10 points and a maximum of 30 points which were then re-scaled to a score between 0–100 (10 = 0 and 30 = 100) with higher scores indicative of better physical functioning. Scores from this scale were categorized as follows: no limitation (score of 100); minor limitation (score 90–99); moderate limitation (60–89); and severe limitation (score 0–59).


Physical Functional Limitations among Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Older Adults: Associations with Socio-Demographic Factors and Health.

Gubhaju L, Banks E, MacNiven R, McNamara BJ, Joshy G, Bauman A, Eades SJ - PLoS ONE (2015)

Questions included in the Medical Outcomes Study–Physical Functioning (MOS-PF) scale.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4589378&req=5

pone.0139364.g001: Questions included in the Medical Outcomes Study–Physical Functioning (MOS-PF) scale.
Mentions: The degree of physical functional limitation was determined using the Medical Outcomes Study–Physical Functioning (MOS-PF) scale [8, 9] that asks participants 10 questions based on whether their health limits them in performing daily activities to vigorous activities (Fig 1). Participants were given a choice of three responses for each question with a score allocated for each response: 1) Yes, limited a lot (score = 1) 2) Yes, limited a little (score = 2) and 3) No, not limited at all (score = 3). Participants could score a minimum of 10 points and a maximum of 30 points which were then re-scaled to a score between 0–100 (10 = 0 and 30 = 100) with higher scores indicative of better physical functioning. Scores from this scale were categorized as follows: no limitation (score of 100); minor limitation (score 90–99); moderate limitation (60–89); and severe limitation (score 0–59).

Bottom Line: In both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal participants, severe limitation was significantly associated with: being ≥70 vs <70 years old (aPRs 1.8, 1.3-2.4 and 5.3, 5.0-5.5, within Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal participants, respectively), none vs tertiary educational qualifications (aPRs 2.4, 1.7-3.3 and 3.1, 3.0-3.2), lower vs higher income (aPRs 6.6, 4.2-10.5 and 5.5, 5.2-5.8), current vs never-smoking (aPRs 2.0, 1.6-2.5 and 2.2, 2.1-2.3), obese vs normal weight (aPRs 1.7, 1.3-2.2 and 2.7, 2.7-2.8) and sitting for ≥7 vs <7 hours/day (aPRs 1.6, 1.2-2.0 and 1.6, 1.6-1.7).It was significantly higher in those with few vs many social contacts (aPRs 1.7, 1.4-2.0 and 1.4, 1.4-1.4) and with very high vs low psychological distress (aPRs 4.4, 3.6-5.4 and 5.7, 5.5-5.9).Effective management of chronic disease and reducing the prevalence of obesity and smoking are important areas for attention.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Aboriginal Health, Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne, 3004, Victoria, Australia.

ABSTRACT

Background: Australian Aboriginal people are disproportionately affected by physical disability; the reasons for this are unclear. This study aimed to quantify associations between severe physical functional limitations and socio-demographic and health-related factors among older Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal adults.

Methods: Questionnaire data from 1,563 Aboriginal and 226,802 non-Aboriginal participants aged ≥45 years from the Sax Institute's 45 and Up Study (New South Wales, Australia) were used to calculate age- and sex-adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) for severe limitation [MOS-PF score <60] according to socio-demographic and health-related factors.

Results: Overall, 26% (410/1563) of Aboriginal participants and 13% (29,569/226,802) of non-Aboriginal participants had severe limitations (aPR 2.8, 95%CI 2.5-3.0). In both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal participants, severe limitation was significantly associated with: being ≥70 vs <70 years old (aPRs 1.8, 1.3-2.4 and 5.3, 5.0-5.5, within Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal participants, respectively), none vs tertiary educational qualifications (aPRs 2.4, 1.7-3.3 and 3.1, 3.0-3.2), lower vs higher income (aPRs 6.6, 4.2-10.5 and 5.5, 5.2-5.8), current vs never-smoking (aPRs 2.0, 1.6-2.5 and 2.2, 2.1-2.3), obese vs normal weight (aPRs 1.7, 1.3-2.2 and 2.7, 2.7-2.8) and sitting for ≥7 vs <7 hours/day (aPRs 1.6, 1.2-2.0 and 1.6, 1.6-1.7). Severe limitations increased with increasing ill-health, with aPRs rising to 5-6 for ≥5 versus no chronic conditions. It was significantly higher in those with few vs many social contacts (aPRs 1.7, 1.4-2.0 and 1.4, 1.4-1.4) and with very high vs low psychological distress (aPRs 4.4, 3.6-5.4 and 5.7, 5.5-5.9).

Conclusions: Although the prevalence of severe physical limitation among Aboriginal people in this study is around three-fold that of non-Aboriginal people, the factors related to it are similar, indicating that Aboriginal people have higher levels of risk factors for and consequences of severe limitations. Effective management of chronic disease and reducing the prevalence of obesity and smoking are important areas for attention.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus