Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Morbidity and physical functioning in old age: Differences according to living area
Aging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet.
Alzheimer Disease Research Center, Karolinska Institutet,.
Aging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet.
The Swedish Red Cross University College. Aging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5800-6454
2010 (English)In: Journal of The American Geriatrics Society, ISSN 0002-8614, E-ISSN 1532-5415, Vol. 58, no 10, 1855-1862 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

OBJECTIVES: To describe differences in morbidity and functional status according to living area.

DESIGN: Community-based survey.

SETTING: A community-based prospective cohort, the Kungsholmen-Nordanstig Project.

PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 75 and older living in an urban area of central Stockholm (n=1,222) and in the rural community of Nordanstig in northern Sweden (n=919).

MEASUREMENTS: Physicians clinically examined all participants using the same standardized protocols in both living areas; trained nurses directly assessed disability.

RESULTS: Cardiovascular disease was the most common disorder in both living areas (39.9% in the urban area and 45.2% in the rural area). There were great area differences in the prevalence of stroke (7.4% and 14.0%), diabetes mellitus 6.3% and 16.1%), and Parkinson's disease (1.0% and 3.7%). It was more common to have two or more diseases than no diseases in the rural area than in the urban area (odds ratio=1.9, 95% confidence interval=1.4–2.4). Significant living area differences (urban vs rural) in population attributable risk (PAR) was found for disability due to stroke (5.6 vs 32.2), diabetes mellitus (1.2 vs 6.1), fractures (1.4 vs 10.7), and hearing impairment (8.7 vs 22.0).

CONCLUSION: Differences were found in disability, morbidity, and disease patterns according to living area. The rural elderly population was more disabled and had more diseases than the urban elderly population, despite being slightly younger than the urban cohort. There were significant area differences in the PAR of how specific chronic conditions influenced the risk of disability.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Vol. 58, no 10, 1855-1862 p.
Keyword [en]
elderly, functioning, morbidity, population-based, rural vs urban
National Category
Gerontology, specializing in Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:rkh:diva-556DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.03085.xPubMedID: 20929463OAI: oai:DiVA.org:rkh-556DiVA: diva2:608642
Available from: 2013-02-28 Created: 2013-02-28 Last updated: 2016-04-19Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
von Strauss, Eva
By organisation
The Swedish Red Cross University College
In the same journal
Journal of The American Geriatrics Society
Gerontology, specializing in Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 97 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf