Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Factors Associated With Recovery of Independence Among Newly Disabled Older Persons

Factors Associated With Recovery of Independence Among Newly Disabled Older Persons BackgroundRecent evidence indicates that most older persons who develop disability in their activities of daily living (ADLs) regain independent function, but many of these persons subsequently experience recurrent disability. The aims of this study were to identify independent predictors of time to and duration of recovery of independent ADL function among newly disabled community-dwelling older persons.MethodsFrom a cohort of 754 persons 70 years or older, we studied the 420 participants who experienced at least 1 episode of disability involving 1 or more key ADLs (bathing, dressing, walking, or transferring) during a median follow-up of 53 months. Comprehensive evaluations at baseline and every 18 months included demographic, medical, cognitive, psychological, social, behavioral, and physical factors. Activities of daily living function and hospital admissions were assessed during monthly telephone interviews, with a completion rate of 99.4%.ResultsOf the 420 newly disabled participants, 342 (81.4%) recovered independent ADL function after a mean ± SD of 4.9 ± 0.5 months. In multivariable proportional hazards analysis, habitual physical activity, mild disability (1-2 ADLs) at onset, and hospitalization in the month of disability onset were independently associated with shorter time to recovery. Among participants who recovered, 251 (73.4%) experienced recurrent disability or death after a mean ± SD of 7.3 ± 8.5 months. Younger age, greater habitual physical activity, higher functional self-efficacy, and shorter duration of the prior disability episode were independently associated with longer duration of recovery.ConclusionsHabitual physical activity is an independent predictor of time to and duration of recovery of independent ADL function among newly disabled community-dwelling older persons. Because the other independent predictors for time to recovery differ from those for maintenance of recovery, different mechanisms may underlie these 2 recovery outcomes, suggesting that different interventions may be required to promote recovery than to maintain independent ADL function after recovery.Disability in basic activities of daily living (ADLs), such as bathing and walking, is common among community-dwelling older personsand is often considered progressive or permanent. Previous research, however, has shown the dynamic nature of disability.In a recent study that included monthly ADL assessments, we demonstrated recovery rates substantially higher than those previously reported,with more than 80% of newly disabled older persons regaining independence. However, the time course of recovery was highly variable and nearly half of those who recovered developed recurrent disability within 6 months.Given this variability, more accurate prognostic information is needed about recovery among newly disabled older persons. Prior studies have either focused on recovery after specific events such as a hip fractureor used assessment intervals of 6 months or longer,thereby underestimating the incidence of disability.The objectives of this study were to identify independent predictors of time to and duration of recovery of ADL independence among newly disabled community-dwelling older persons. By improving prognostication, we hope to empower older persons, their families, and their clinicians to set realistic goals and plan for appropriate care. Also, some predictors may be modifiable and, hence, amenable to intervention.METHODSSTUDY POPULATIONParticipants were drawn from an ongoing longitudinal study, described in detail elsewhere,of 754 community-dwelling persons, 70 years and older, who were nondisabled in 4 key ADLs (bathing, dressing, walking, and transferring). Potential participants were members of a large health plan and were excluded for life expectancy of less than 12 months, plans to move out of the area, or inability to speak English. Only 4.6% of persons contacted refused screening, and 75.2% of those eligible agreed to participate. To ensure a sufficient incidence of disability, persons with slow gait speed were oversampled.Participants underwent comprehensive in-home assessments at baseline and at 18 and 36 months, and had monthly telephone interviews for a median of 53 months.DATA COLLECTIONThe comprehensive assessments were completed by trained research nurses using standard instruments. Data were collected on candidate predictors from several domains: demographic, medical,cognitive,psychological,social,behavioral,and physical(Table 1). The amount of missing data was less than 1% for all candidate predictors in the baseline assessments and less than 5% for subsequent assessments.Table 1. Bivariate Associations of Potential Prognostic Factors With Time to Recovery and Duration of Recovery of Independent ADL Function Among Newly Disabled Older PersonsFactorMeasurement DetailsTime to Recovery (n = 420)Duration of Recovery (n = 342)Value*Hazard Ratio†PValueValue*Hazard Ratio†PValueDemographic Age, yNA81.2 ± 5.40.99.2581.1 ± 5.41.04<.001 Male sexNA148 (35.2)0.97.78114 (33.3)0.78.07 White raceNA380 (90.5)1.17.40310 (90.6)1.18.47 Education, yNA11.7 ± 3.01.02.3811.8 ± 3.00.98.33 Living aloneNA176 (41.9)1.09.43141 (41.2)0.93.54Medical Chronic conditions9 Self-reported and  physician-diagnosed‡&numsp;2.0 ± 1.20.94.16&numsp;2.0 ± 1.21.06.26 MedicationsPrescription  and over-the-counter&numsp;7.2 ± 3.61.01.73&numsp;7.2 ± 3.51.02.28 Body mass index§Self-reported height  and weight26.7 ± 5.61.01.5126.9 ± 5.71.01.39Cognitive MMSE score0 (low) to 30 (high)26.1 ± 3.01.04.0426.2 ± 2.90.97.10Psychological Functional self-efficacy0 (low) to 40 (high)26.8 + 8.01.02.0227.0 + 8.00.96<.001 Depressive symptomsCES-D: 0 (none) to 60 (many)11.0 + 9.21.00.9411.0 + 9.01.01.07Social Social activity0 (low) to 30 (high)&numsp;7.1 + 3.11.03.12&numsp;7.2 + 3.00.92<.001 Social supportMOS: 0 (low) to 28 (high)21.9 ± 5.71.01.4621.8 ± 5.91.01.21Behavioral Habitual physical activityPASE: 0 (low) to 360 (high)&numsp;64.1 ± 46.71.04.004&numsp;66.0 ± 48.10.93<.001 Smoking status  NonsmokerNA141 (33.7)1.00NA120 (35.2)1.00NA  Former smokerNA247 (59.1)1.05.69193 (56.6)1.01.95  Current smokerNA30 (7.2)1.28.2428 (8.2)1.14.60 Alcohol use, AUDIT score&par;  00 to 40233 (56.0)1.00NA185 (54.7)1.00NA  10 to 4075 (18.0)1.04.8062 (18.3)1.04.81  ≥20 to 40108 (26.0)1.32.0391 (26.9)0.68.02Physical Timed rapid gait, sBack and forth over  a 3-m course12.7 ± 7.20.99.1712.7 ± 7.51.02<.001 Timed chair stands, sUp and down 3 times12.4 ± 5.70.99.4012.4 ± 5.91.03.004 Balance scoreSPPB: 0 (poor) to 4 (good)&numsp;2.3 ± 1.31.07.12&numsp;2.3 ± 1.30.85.001 Grip strength, kgHandheld dynamometer21.4 ± 8.31.00.9521.2 ± 8.30.97.002Other Mild disability (1-2 ADLs) at onsetNA319 (76.0)1.68<.001283 (82.7)1.14.45 Hospitalized in the month of disability onsetNA230 (54.8)1.36.006201 (58.8)1.42.008 Duration of prior disability episode, mo¶NANANANA&numsp;3.3 ± 6.81.08<.001Abbreviations: ADL, activities of daily living; AUDIT, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test; CES-D, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; MOS, Medical Outcomes Survey Social Support Scale; NA, data not applicable; PASE, Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly; SPPB, Short Physical Performance Battery balance component.*Data are given as mean±SD or number (percentage). Percentages are based on totals for each factor and may not total 100 because of rounding.†Hazard ratios for continuous variables are per 1-point increase, except those for habitual physical activity, which are per 10-point increase. Hazard ratios for time to recovery can be interpreted as the relative hazard (similar to a relative risk) of recovering independent ADL function, with values greater than 1 indicating a higher likelihood of recovery. Hazard ratios for duration of recovery can be interpreted as the relative hazard of recurrent ADL disability or death, with values less than 1 indicating a lower likelihood of recurrent disability and, thus, a longer duration of recovery. Hazard ratios are adjusted for time from most recent comprehensive examination to disability onset.‡Hypertension, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, stroke, diabetes mellitus, arthritis, hip fracture, chronic lung disease, and cancer (other than minor skin cancers).§Calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters.&par;Alcohol use was nonlinearly related to both outcomes, and was categorized into quartiles. 0 indicates low-risk use; 40, higher-risk use.¶Data included only for duration of recovery. Time to recovery was determined for each participant’s first disability episode, so there was no prior episode.During monthly telephone interviews, disability in each of the 4 key ADLs was assessed with the question, “At the present time, do you need help from another person to” perform the task. Participants who required personal assistance with at least 1 ADL were considered disabled. The reliability of our disability assessment was substantial for reassessments within 48 hours (κ = 0.75) and almost perfect for reassessments completed the same day (κ = 1.0).Disability in 3 or 4 ADLs was defined as severe; and in 1 or 2 ADLs, as mild. Recovery occurred when a participant reported no disability in any of the 4 ADLs. Restricted activity, defined as staying in bed for half a day or cutting down on one’s usual activities,and overnight hospitalizations during the past month were also ascertained. Follow-up interviews were included through May 19, 2003, when 151 (20.0%) of the participants had died and 31 (4.1%) had dropped out. Data are otherwise available for 99.4% of the remaining 31 244 monthly interviews.STATISTICAL ANALYSISPotential prognostic factors, chosen from factors previously associated with either disabilityor recovery,were evaluated during the most recent comprehensive assessment or the telephone interview in the month of disability onset. Variables were modeled as continuous unless there was evidence of a nonlinear relationship with either outcome. To observe the statistical assumption of independence, we included only the first episode of disability for each participant. We assessed the associations of potential prognostic factors with time to and duration of recovery using proportional hazards regression, because these models allow full use of our monthly data. Furthermore, when recovery is evaluated at a single time point, as in logistic regression analysis, any intervening transitions between disability and independence are ignored. Factors associated with time to outcome in the bivariate analyses (P<.10) were considered in the multivariable analyses, which were adjusted for the time from the most recent comprehensive assessment to disability onset. Many of the potential predictors were highly correlated, particularly the physical measures, physical activity, and self-efficacy (Spearman rfor all comparisons, 0.3-0.6). Because of this high collinearity, backward elimination with a criterion of P<.05 was used to identify the independent predictors.All multivariable models had at least 20 events per variable.All Pvalues are 2-tailed, and all analyses were performed using SAS statistical software, version 8.Time to RecoveryParticipants were entered into the analytic sample (n = 420) at their first episode of disability and were observed until they recovered independence, died, or reached the end of follow-up. Participants who died were censored at the time of death in the primary analysisand at the end of the study (May 19, 2003) in a secondary analysis. We defined zero timeas the first month of disability. Results were confirmed with logistic regression models of recovery at 3 months. To address the concern that recovery episodes lasting only 1 month might be due to measurement error, we repeated our primary analysis for recovery lasting 2 consecutive months or longer (ie, “persistent”).Duration of RecoveryParticipants were entered into the analytic sample (n = 342) at the time of recovery of independence. Duration was defined as the time from recovery to the first month of recurrent disability or death. Participants who experienced neither recurrent disability nor death were censored at the end of follow-up. In addition to the potential predictors considered for time to recovery, the duration of the preceding disability episode was considered as a potential predictor of duration of recovery.RESULTSThe descriptive statistics for the potential prognostic factors among the 420 participants who experienced disability are presented in Table 1. Participants had a range of 0 to 6 chronic conditions. The most common conditions were hypertension (n = 239), arthritis (n = 156), diabetes mellitus (n = 94), and myocardial infarction (n = 89). Of the 420 participants, 342 (81.4%) regained independent ADL function after a mean ± SD follow-up of 4.9 ± 0.5 months; 215 participants (51.2%) recovered after a single month of disability. Among the remaining 127 participants, the most common patterns of recovery were stable disability until recovery (n = 59) and a gradual decrease in the number of ADL disabilities (n = 38). The characteristics of disability and recovery by specific ADL disabilities in the month of onset are presented in Table 2. Bathing disability was most common, and walking disability was least common, with most participants having other concurrent ADL disabilities. The patterns of recovery among the 4 ADLs were comparable.Table 2. Disability and Recovery Characteristics for 420 Subjects by Specific ADL Disability in the Month of Disability OnsetCharacteristicBathing (n = 293)Dressing (n = 224)Transferring (n = 139)Walking (n = 130)Concurrent disability in ≥1 other ADLs*171 (58.4)164 (73.2)99 (71.2)114 (87.7)Recovered*†226 (77.1)166 (74.1)95 (68.3)88 (67.7)Duration of recovery, mo‡6 (2-18)6 (2-18)8 (3-20)7 (2-18)Recurrent disability§164 (72.6)120 (72.3)65 (68.4)63 (71.6)Recurrent disability in same ADL&par;126 (76.8)75 (62.5)25 (38.5)21 (33.3)Abbreviation: See Table 1.*Data are given as number (percentage) of the total in each group.†Defined as complete recovery of independence in all ADLs.‡Data are given as median (interquartile range).§Data are given as number (percentage) of those who recovered. Only one participant, disabled in bathing alone, experienced death without recurrent disability.&par;Data are given as number (percentage) of those with a recurrent disability. For example, of those participants with a bathing disability who subsequently recovered full independence and then developed recurrent disability, 76.8% were again disabled in bathing. These results are consistent with the initial pattern of disability.The bivariate associations of potential prognostic factors with time to recovery are presented in Table 1. In multivariable analyses, habitual physical activity, mild disability, and hospitalization remained independent predictors of time to recovery (Table 3). These same variables were independent predictors of recovery at 3 months. When the analysis was repeated for persistent recovery, the effect of hospitalization was considerably reduced (hazard ratio = 1.05, P = .70). Censoring participants who died at the end of the study period had no effect on the results.Table 3. Independent Predictors of Time to Recovery of Independent ADL Function Among Newly Disabled Older PersonsCharacteristicHazard Ratio (95% Confidence Interval)*PValueHabitual physical activity,  per 10 points1.04 (1.02-1.07)<.001Mild disability  at onset (1-2 ADLs)1.47 (1.08-2.01).01Hospitalized in the month  of disability onset1.28 (1.01-1.63).05Abbreviation: See Table 1.*Hazard ratios are adjusted for the time from the most recent comprehensive assessment to disability onset. Cognitive function, functional self-efficacy, and alcohol use were initially considered for the model, but were eliminated in the selection of the best model. Hazard ratios can be interpreted as the relative hazard of recovering independent ADL function, with values greater than 1 indicating a higher likelihood of recovery.The descriptive statistics for the potential prognostic factors among the 342 participants who recovered are also presented in Table 1. Of these 342 participants, 251 (73.4%) experienced recurrent disability or death after a mean ± SD follow-up of 7.3 ± 8.5 months; 72 (21.1%) experienced only 1 month of recovery. Of these 72 participants, 57 (79.2%) had subsequent periods of independence, 46 (63.9%) had subsequent periods lasting 2 months or longer, and 37 (51.4%) were hospitalized or had restricted activity during the month of their recurrent disability.The associations of potential prognostic factors with duration of recovery are presented in Table 1. Age, habitual physical activity, self-efficacy, and duration of the prior disability episode remained independent predictors of duration of recovery in multivariable analyses (Table 4). These results did not change appreciably in subsequent analyses that omitted the 3 ADL items from the self-efficacy scale and that considered participants with only a single month of subsequent independence as nonrecovered for the remainder of the follow-up. In a model that did not include duration of the prior disability episode, the other 3 independent predictors remained the same, and no new candidate predictors were significant.Table 4. Independent Predictors of Duration of Recovery of Independent ADL Function Among Newly Disabled Older PersonsCharacteristicHazard Ratio (95% Confidence Interval)*PValueAge (in years)1.03 (1.01-1.06).01Habitual physical activity,  per 10 points0.96 (0.93-0.99).01Functional self-efficacy,  per point0.97 (0.95-0.99)<.001Duration of prior disability  episode, per month1.09 (1.05-1.12)<.001Abbreviation: See Table 1.*Hazard ratios are adjusted for the time from the most recent comprehensive assessment to disability onset and the duration of the preceding disability episode. Male sex, depressive symptoms, social activity, alcohol use, timed gait, timed chair stands, balance, grip strength, and hospitalization in the month of disability onset were initially included in the model, but were eliminated in the selection of the best model. Hazard ratios can be interpreted as the relative hazard of recurrent ADL disability or death, with values less than 1 indicating a lower likelihood of recurrent disability and, thus, a longer duration of recovery.COMMENTIn this prospective cohort study, which included monthly assessments of ADL function, we found that habitual physical activity, the initial severity of disability, and hospitalization in the month of disability onset were independently associated with time to recovery of independent ADL function among newly disabled community-dwelling older persons. Furthermore, among persons who had recovered, we found that habitual physical activity, age, self-efficacy, and the duration of the prior disability episode were independently associated with duration of recovery.Habitual physical activity was a strong independent predictor of time to and duration of recovery. Multiple previous studies have demonstrated a strong association between habitual physical activity and maintenance of functional independence,and several randomized trials have shown that exercise-based interventions can slow or prevent functional decline among older persons.As a potentially modifiable factor, physical activity represents an attractive target for interventions designed to promote recovery and maintenance of ADL independence.We found that time to recovery is also dependent on the initial severity of disability and on hospitalization in the month of disability onset. Counterintuitively, hospitalization during the month of disability onset was associated with shorter time to recovery, indicating that older persons who develop disability in response to an event leading to hospitalization are more likely to recover than those whose disability develops insidiously, perhaps because of gradual progression of underlying conditions. This association, which was not attributable to the censoring of participants who died, may reflect different pathways to disability, such as the catastrophic vs progressive pathways described by Ferrucci and colleagues.The receipt of rehabilitative services after hospitalization is another possible explanation for this finding. Interventions that quickly identify and ameliorate the effects of events leading to hospitalization may facilitate recovery by decreasing the severity of disability. For example, efforts to increase mobility during hospital stays are associated with less functional decline in older persons,and might also lead to more rapid recovery. Further research is warranted to evaluate the effects of rehabilitative services on the recovery process and to better characterize the events that precipitate disability.While several previous studies have found that younger age is associated with a higher rate of recovery among older persons,our findings of no age effect are consistent with those of Hansen and colleagues,who studied recovery from disability 1 month after hospitalization. One possible explanation for this discrepancy is the difference in the length of the assessment intervals between our study and others. We found that younger age was associated with longer duration of recovery, indicating that older persons who recover are more likely to experience recurrent disability or death over 6 to 12 months and, thus, would have been classified as “not recovered” in prior studies with assessment intervals of 6 months or longer.The monthly assessments of function provided a unique opportunity to examine predictors of the duration of recovery among older persons who recovered independent function. In addition to habitual physical activity, we found that younger age, greater self-efficacy, and duration of the prior disability episode were independent predictors of longer duration of recovery. To help interpret the magnitude of the hazard ratios, we offer 2 examples. First, walking for 30 minutes 5 days a week would add 50 points to the physical activity score,which would reduce the likelihood of recurrent disability by about 20%. Second, a change from being fairly to completely confident on 5 of the 10 self-efficacy activities would reduce the likelihood of recurrent disability by 26%. It is unlikely that self-efficacy is simply a surrogate for recurrent disability because participants were explicitly asked about their confidence rather than their actual performance of the activities, self-efficacy was assessed before the disabling event, and our results did not change after the 3 ADL questions were omitted from the efficacy scale.The duration of the prior disability episode was strongly associated with the duration of recovery. It is unlikely that this association is attributable to participants with longer disability durations having less subsequent follow-up during which to experience recurrent disability or death. Because the duration of total follow-up in our study was much longer than the durations of disability and recovery, we were able to observe nearly three quarters of participants until recurrent disability or death. In addition, disability durations were shorter and recovery durations were substantially longer among those who remained independent compared with those who experienced recurrent disability or death (data not shown), suggesting that the association between the durations of disability and recovery was not an artifact of limited follow-up. Recent research has demonstrated that a history of disability, even only of 1 or 2 months, is strongly associated with future disability and death.This finding and those of the present study suggest that history of disability, including attributes such as duration and number of episodes, may be an important determinant of subsequent disability and recovery. While some previous studies have incorporated multiple transitions between disabled and independent states in models of the disabling process,the effects of prior disability episodes on subsequent recovery have not been explicitly considered. Future studies will need to incorporate multiple episodes of disability and recovery and account for the effects of disability history.Physical measures, particularly gait speed, have consistently been shown in previous studies to be strong independent predictors of disability.Although all of our physical measures were significant predictors of recurrent disability in bivariate analyses, none were identified as independent predictors. There are several possible explanations for this apparent discrepancy. First, in contrast to other studies, our outcome was recurrent disability, contingent on recovery from a previous episode of disability. Second, our physical measures were assessed before the initial disability episode and may have been altered more by the intervening disabling event than other potential predictors, such as self-efficacy. Third, the physical measures were highly correlated with physical activity and self-efficacy.Because many of the prognostic factors identified in bivariate analyses were highly intercorrelated, the independent predictors we identified may not be the best prognostic factors in other populations.Other significant factors from the bivariate analyses may still have effects on recovery, either directly or through their effect on the independent factors. For example, improving balance and gait through physical therapy or exercise may increase the duration of recovery either directly or indirectly through enhancement of self-efficacy or increased physical activity.With the exception of habitual physical activity, the factors associated with time to recovery differed from those associated with duration of recovery. Time to recovery was most strongly associated with factors related to the onset of disability (ie, the type of precipitating event), while duration of recovery was more strongly associated with factors previously associated with risk for disability.Some of these are indicators of frailty, defined as a state of reduced physiologic reserve associated with increased susceptibility to disability.Our bivariate results provide additional support for a mechanistic difference, because few of the factors that predicted time to recovery also predicted duration of recovery. Because older persons who have recently recovered independent function are at high risk for recurrent disability,they represent an important target population for interventions to promote maintenance of independence. We recognize that the associations found in our epidemiologic study support, but do not prove, causation. Randomized trials will be needed to determine if interventions directed at the identified predictors can alter disability outcomes.Patterns of recovery among the 4 key ADLs were comparable. Although dressing and bathing may be more affected by some risk factors (eg, deficits in cognitive or upper extremity function) than walking and transferring, disability for each of these activities is likely multifactorial. Further research is needed to determine whether similar mechanisms account for recovery and maintenance of independence for these different ADLs.It is unlikely that brief recovery durations (ie, only 1 month) were attributable to measurement error. First, most participants with brief recoveries experienced subsequent periods of independence. Second, most recurrent episodes were preceded by hospitalization or restricted activity. Third, our disability assessment was highly reliable. These brief recoveries may reflect unstable disability, defined as substantial fluctuations in function with minor external events.Because brief periods of disability have considerable prognostic importance,brief periods of recovery may also be clinically important.We were unable to determine the precise cause of our participants’ disability, which may not be readily apparent in the absence of a catastrophic event.Disability is multifactorial,and many episodes of disability are not preceded by a problem leading to hospitalization or restricted activity.Many older persons, for example, report common symptoms, such as pain and fatigue, as the cause of prevalent disability,and recent evidence indicates that events leading to restricted activity, another multifactorial process,are independently associated with decline in ADL function.Although the time to and duration of recovery likely differ depending on the specific events precipitating disability, determination of the causes of individual episodes is complex and beyond the scope of this study.Because persons with slow gait speed were oversampled, our population may have had lower rates of recovery and levels of physical activity and self-efficacy than a population-based sample of older adults. Because our participants were members of a single health plan in a small urban area, our results may not be generalizable to older persons in other settings. However, our population reflects the demographic characteristics of persons 65 years or older in New Haven County, Connecticut, which are comparable to the United States as a whole with the exception of race.Furthermore, the high participation and follow-up rates and the paucity of missing data enhance the generalizability of our findings.In summary, habitual physical activity is an important predictor of time to and duration of recovery. Because the other independent predictors for time to recovery differ from those for maintenance of recovery, different mechanisms may underlie these 2 outcomes, suggesting that different interventions may be required to promote recovery than to maintain independent ADL function.Correspondence:Susan E. Hardy, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, 20 York St, Tompkins Basement 15, New Haven, CT 06504 (susan.hardy@yale.edu).Accepted for Publication: August 20, 2004.Funding/Support:This study was supported in part by grant R01AG17560 from the National Institute on Aging, Bethesda, Md; a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, NJ; the Paul Beeson Physician Faculty Scholar in Aging Research; and a grant from the Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation, West Hartford, Conn. The study was conducted at the Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center, Yale University School of Medicine (grant P30AG21342). Dr Hardy is a student in the Investigative Medicine Program at Yale University School of Medicine (grant K30HL004145), and is supported by training grant T32AG1934 from the National Institute on Aging and a Pfizer/AGS Foundation for Health in Aging Junior Faculty Scholar award. Dr Gill is the recipient of Midcareer Investigator Award K24AG021507 in Patient-Oriented Research from the National Institute on Aging.Previous Presentation:This study was presented at the Annual Scientific Meeting of the Gerontological Society of America; November 23, 2003; San Diego, Calif.Acknowledgment:We thank Joseph Agostini, MD, for his careful review of an earlier version of the manuscript; Denise Shepard, BSN, Martha Oravetz, RN, Shirley Hannan, RN, Andrea Benjamin, BSN, Alice Kossack, Barbara Foster, Shari Lani, Alice Van Wie, and the late Bernice Hebert, RN, for assistance with data collection; Evelyne Gahbauer, MD, MPH, for data management and programming; Wanda Carr and Geraldine Hawthorne for assistance with data entry and management; Peter Charpentier, MPH, for development of the participant tracking system; and Joanne McGloin, MDiv, MBA, for leadership and advice as the project director.REFERENCESKGMantonA longitudinal study of functional change and mortality in the United States.J Gerontol198843S153S1612971088LMVerbruggeJMReomaALGruber-BaldiniShort-term dynamics of disability and well-being.J Health Soc Behav199435971178064125SEHardyTMGillRecovery from disability among community-dwelling older persons.JAMA20042911596160215069047MCreeKCCarriereCLSoskolneMSuarez-AlmazorFunctional dependence after hip fracture.Am J Phys Med Rehabil20018073674311562555JPMichelPHoffmeyerCKlopfensteinMBruchezBGrabCLd’EpinayPrognosis of functional recovery 1 year after hip fracture: typical patient profiles through cluster analysis.J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci200055M508M51510995048GVOstirJSGoodwinKSMarkidesKJOttenbacherJBalfourJMGuralnikDifferential effects of premorbid physical and emotional health on recovery from acute events.J Am Geriatr Soc20025071371811982673TMGillJTRobisonMETinettiPredictors of recovery in activities of daily living among disabled older persons living in the community.J Gen Intern Med1997127577629436895LGBranchSKatzKKniepmannJAPapsideroA prospective study of functional status among community elders.Am J Public Health1984742662686696160TMGillSEHardyCSWilliamsUnderestimation of disability among community-living older persons.J Am Geriatr Soc2002501492149712383145JMGuralnikLFerrucciUnderestimation of disability occurrence in epidemiological studies of older people: is research on disability still alive?J Am Geriatr Soc2002501599160112383164TMGillMMDesaiEAGahbauerTRHolfordCSWilliamsRestricted activity among community-living older persons: incidence, precipitants, and health care utilization.Ann Intern Med200113531332111529694MFFolsteinSEFolsteinPRMcHugh“Mini-Mental State”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician.J Psychiatr Res1975121891981202204FJKohoutLFBerkmanDAEvansJCornoni-HuntleyTwo shorter forms of the CES-D (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression) depression symptoms index.J Aging Health1993517919310125443METinettiCFMendes de LeonJTDoucetteDIBakerFear of falling and fall-related efficacy in relationship to functioning among community-living elders.J Gerontol199449M140M147CDSherbourneALStewartThe MOS social support survey.Soc Sci Med1991327057142035047JCornoni-HuntleyedDBBrockedAMOstfeldedJOTayloredRBWallaceedMELaffertyedEstablished Populations for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly: Resource Data Book.Bethesda, Md: National Institute on Aging; 1986RAWashburnKWSmithAMJetteCAJanneyThe Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE): development and evaluation.J Clin Epidemiol1993461531628437031MPiccinelliETessariMBortolomasiEfficacy of the alcohol use disorders identification test as a screening tool for hazardous alcohol intake and related disorders in primary care: a validity study.BMJ19973144204249040389TMGillCSWilliamsMETinettiAssessing risk for the onset of functional dependence among older adults: the role of physical performance.J Am Geriatr Soc1995436036097775716JMGuralnikLFerrucciCFPieperLower extremity function and subsequent disability: consistency across studies, predictive models, and value of gait speed alone compared with the short physical performance battery.J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci200055M221M23110811152SGiampaoliLFerrucciFCecchiHand-grip strength predicts incident disability in non-disabled older men.Age Ageing19992828328810475865TRantanenJMGuralnikDFoleyMidlife hand grip strength as a predictor of old age disability.JAMA199928155856010022113JRLandisGCKochThe measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.Biometrics197733159174843571LFerrucciJMGuralnikEMSimonsickMSaliveMCCortiJLangloisProgressive versus catastrophic disability: a longitudinal view of the disablement process.J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci199651M123M1308630705AZLaCroixJMGuralnikLFBerkmanRBWallaceSSatterfieldMaintaining mobility in late life, II: smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, and body mass index.Am J Epidemiol19931378588698484377CFMendes de LeonTAGlassLFBerkmanSocial engagement and disability in a community population of older adults: the New Haven EPESE.Am J Epidemiol200315763364212672683CFMendes de LeonTESeemanDIBakerEDRichardsonMETinettiSelf-efficacy, physical decline, and change in functioning in community-living elders: a prospective study.J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci199651S183S1908673647MEMillerWJRejeskiBAReboussinTRTen HaveWHEttingerPhysical activity, functional limitations, and disability in older adults.J Am Geriatr Soc2000481264127211037014JMGuralnikKCLandDBlazerGGFillenbaumLGBranchEducational status and active life expectancy among older blacks and whites.N Engl J Med19933291101168510687TMGillCSWilliamsMETinettiThe combined effects of baseline vulnerability and acute hospital events on the development of functional dependence among community-living older persons.J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci199954M377M38310462171GAmblerARBradyPRoystonSimplifying a prognostic model: a simulation study based on clinical data.Stat Med20022138033822JConcatoPPeduzziTRHolfordARFeinsteinImportance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards analysis, I: background, goals, and general strategy.J Clin Epidemiol199548149515018543963SAS Institute IncSAS/STAT User’s Guide, Version 8.Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2000RArriagadaLERutqvistAKramarHJohanssonCompeting risks determining event-free survival in early breast cancer.Br J Cancer1992669519571419642ARFeinsteinClinical Epidemiology: the Architecture of Clinical Research.Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Co; 1985SCWuSYLeuCYLiIncidence of and predictors for chronic disability in activities of daily living among older people in Taiwan.J Am Geriatr Soc1999471082108610484250LFerrucciGIzmirlianSLeveilleSmoking, physical activity, and active life expectancy.Am J Epidemiol199914964565310192312AEStuckJMWalthertTNikolausCJBulaCHohmannJCBeckRisk factors for functional status decline in community-living elderly people: a systematic literature review.Soc Sci Med19994844546910075171TMGillDIBakerMGottschalkPNPeduzziHAlloreAByersA program to prevent functional decline in physically frail, elderly persons who live at home.N Engl J Med20023471068107412362007EFBinderKBSchechtmanAAEhsaniEffects of exercise training on frailty in community-dwelling older adults: results of a randomized, controlled trial.J Am Geriatr Soc2002501921192812473001FLiPHarmerEMcAuleyAn evaluation of the effects of Tai Chi exercise on physical function among older persons: a randomized controlled trial.Ann Behav Med20012313914611394556BWPenninxSPMessierWJRejeskiPhysical exercise and the prevention of disability in activities of daily living in older persons with osteoarthritis.Arch Intern Med20011612309231611606146AMJetteMLachmanMMGiorgettiExercise—it’s never too late: the strong-for-life program.Am J Public Health19998966729987467WHEttingerJrRBurnsSPMessierA randomized trial comparing aerobic exercise and resistance exercise with a health education program in older adults with knee osteoarthritis: the Fitness Arthritis and Seniors Trial (FAST).JAMA199727725318980206HSiebensHAronowDEdwardsZGhasemiA randomized controlled trial of exercise to improve outcomes of acute hospitalization in older adults.J Am Geriatr Soc2000481545155211129741CJBrownSKFriedkinSKInouyePrevalence and outcomes of low mobility in hospitalized older patients.J Am Geriatr Soc2004521263127015271112KHansenJMahoneyMPaltaRisk factors for lack of recovery of ADL independence after hospital discharge.J Am Geriatr Soc19994736036510078901TMGillBKurlandThe prognostic effect of prior disability episodes among nondisabled community-living older persons.Am J Epidemiol20031581090109614630605MLagergrenDisability transitions in an area-based system of long-term care for the elderly and disabled.Health Policy199428153174CFMendes de LeonLABeckettGGFillenbaumBlack-white differences in risk of becoming disabled and recovering from disability in old age: a longitudinal analysis of two EPESE populations.Am J Epidemiol19971454884979063338CFMendes de LeonTAGlassLABeckettTESeemanDAEvansLFBerkmanSocial networks and disability transitions across eight intervals of yearly data in the New Haven EPESE.J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci199954S162S17210363047LABeckettDBBrockJHLemkeAnalysis of change in self-reported physical function among older persons in four population studies.Am J Epidemiol19961437667788610686SStudenskiSPereraDWallacePhysical performance measures in the clinical setting.J Am Geriatr Soc20035131432212588574KVan SteenDCurranJKramerMulticollinearity in prognostic factor analyses using the EORTC QLQ-C30: identification and impact on model selection.Stat Med20022138653884DMBuchnerEHWagnerPreventing frail health.Clin Geriatr Med199281171576567AJCampbellDMBuchnerUnstable disability and the fluctuations of frailty.Age Ageing1997263153189271296WHEttingerJrLPFriedTHarrisLShemanskiRSchulzJRobbinsSelf-reported causes of physical disability in older people: the Cardiovascular Health Study.J Am Geriatr Soc199442103510447930326GIKempenLMVerbruggeSSMerrillJOrmelThe impact of multiple impairments on disability in community-dwelling older people.Age Ageing19982759560412675099LMVerbruggeJMLepkowskiYImanakaComorbidity and its impact on disability.Milbank Q1989674504842534562LFerrucciJMGuralnikMPahorMCCortiRJHavlikHospital diagnoses, Medicare charges, and nursing home admissions in the year when older persons become severely disabled.JAMA19972777287349042845TMGillHAlloreTRHolfordZGuoThe development of insidious disability in activities of daily living among community-living older persons.Am J Med2004117484491TMGillHAlloreTRHolfordZGuoPhysical frailty, intervening events, and the development of disability in activities of daily living among community-living older persons.JAMA200429221152124US Census BureauAmerican FactFinder.Available at: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed May 29, 2003MSzkloPopulation-based cohort studies.Epidemiol Rev19982081899762511 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA Internal Medicine American Medical Association

Factors Associated With Recovery of Independence Among Newly Disabled Older Persons

Hardy, Susan E.; Gill, Thomas M.
JAMA Internal Medicine , Volume 165 (1) – Jan 10, 2005
Download PDF
7 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/factors-associated-with-recovery-of-independence-among-newly-disabled-Lf0ZPlfdcS

References (68)

Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright 2005 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.
ISSN
2168-6106
eISSN
2168-6114
DOI
10.1001/archinte.165.1.106
pmid
15642885
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

BackgroundRecent evidence indicates that most older persons who develop disability in their activities of daily living (ADLs) regain independent function, but many of these persons subsequently experience recurrent disability. The aims of this study were to identify independent predictors of time to and duration of recovery of independent ADL function among newly disabled community-dwelling older persons.MethodsFrom a cohort of 754 persons 70 years or older, we studied the 420 participants who experienced at least 1 episode of disability involving 1 or more key ADLs (bathing, dressing, walking, or transferring) during a median follow-up of 53 months. Comprehensive evaluations at baseline and every 18 months included demographic, medical, cognitive, psychological, social, behavioral, and physical factors. Activities of daily living function and hospital admissions were assessed during monthly telephone interviews, with a completion rate of 99.4%.ResultsOf the 420 newly disabled participants, 342 (81.4%) recovered independent ADL function after a mean ± SD of 4.9 ± 0.5 months. In multivariable proportional hazards analysis, habitual physical activity, mild disability (1-2 ADLs) at onset, and hospitalization in the month of disability onset were independently associated with shorter time to recovery. Among participants who recovered, 251 (73.4%) experienced recurrent disability or death after a mean ± SD of 7.3 ± 8.5 months. Younger age, greater habitual physical activity, higher functional self-efficacy, and shorter duration of the prior disability episode were independently associated with longer duration of recovery.ConclusionsHabitual physical activity is an independent predictor of time to and duration of recovery of independent ADL function among newly disabled community-dwelling older persons. Because the other independent predictors for time to recovery differ from those for maintenance of recovery, different mechanisms may underlie these 2 recovery outcomes, suggesting that different interventions may be required to promote recovery than to maintain independent ADL function after recovery.Disability in basic activities of daily living (ADLs), such as bathing and walking, is common among community-dwelling older personsand is often considered progressive or permanent. Previous research, however, has shown the dynamic nature of disability.In a recent study that included monthly ADL assessments, we demonstrated recovery rates substantially higher than those previously reported,with more than 80% of newly disabled older persons regaining independence. However, the time course of recovery was highly variable and nearly half of those who recovered developed recurrent disability within 6 months.Given this variability, more accurate prognostic information is needed about recovery among newly disabled older persons. Prior studies have either focused on recovery after specific events such as a hip fractureor used assessment intervals of 6 months or longer,thereby underestimating the incidence of disability.The objectives of this study were to identify independent predictors of time to and duration of recovery of ADL independence among newly disabled community-dwelling older persons. By improving prognostication, we hope to empower older persons, their families, and their clinicians to set realistic goals and plan for appropriate care. Also, some predictors may be modifiable and, hence, amenable to intervention.METHODSSTUDY POPULATIONParticipants were drawn from an ongoing longitudinal study, described in detail elsewhere,of 754 community-dwelling persons, 70 years and older, who were nondisabled in 4 key ADLs (bathing, dressing, walking, and transferring). Potential participants were members of a large health plan and were excluded for life expectancy of less than 12 months, plans to move out of the area, or inability to speak English. Only 4.6% of persons contacted refused screening, and 75.2% of those eligible agreed to participate. To ensure a sufficient incidence of disability, persons with slow gait speed were oversampled.Participants underwent comprehensive in-home assessments at baseline and at 18 and 36 months, and had monthly telephone interviews for a median of 53 months.DATA COLLECTIONThe comprehensive assessments were completed by trained research nurses using standard instruments. Data were collected on candidate predictors from several domains: demographic, medical,cognitive,psychological,social,behavioral,and physical(Table 1). The amount of missing data was less than 1% for all candidate predictors in the baseline assessments and less than 5% for subsequent assessments.Table 1. Bivariate Associations of Potential Prognostic Factors With Time to Recovery and Duration of Recovery of Independent ADL Function Among Newly Disabled Older PersonsFactorMeasurement DetailsTime to Recovery (n = 420)Duration of Recovery (n = 342)Value*Hazard Ratio†PValueValue*Hazard Ratio†PValueDemographic Age, yNA81.2 ± 5.40.99.2581.1 ± 5.41.04<.001 Male sexNA148 (35.2)0.97.78114 (33.3)0.78.07 White raceNA380 (90.5)1.17.40310 (90.6)1.18.47 Education, yNA11.7 ± 3.01.02.3811.8 ± 3.00.98.33 Living aloneNA176 (41.9)1.09.43141 (41.2)0.93.54Medical Chronic conditions9 Self-reported and  physician-diagnosed‡&numsp;2.0 ± 1.20.94.16&numsp;2.0 ± 1.21.06.26 MedicationsPrescription  and over-the-counter&numsp;7.2 ± 3.61.01.73&numsp;7.2 ± 3.51.02.28 Body mass index§Self-reported height  and weight26.7 ± 5.61.01.5126.9 ± 5.71.01.39Cognitive MMSE score0 (low) to 30 (high)26.1 ± 3.01.04.0426.2 ± 2.90.97.10Psychological Functional self-efficacy0 (low) to 40 (high)26.8 + 8.01.02.0227.0 + 8.00.96<.001 Depressive symptomsCES-D: 0 (none) to 60 (many)11.0 + 9.21.00.9411.0 + 9.01.01.07Social Social activity0 (low) to 30 (high)&numsp;7.1 + 3.11.03.12&numsp;7.2 + 3.00.92<.001 Social supportMOS: 0 (low) to 28 (high)21.9 ± 5.71.01.4621.8 ± 5.91.01.21Behavioral Habitual physical activityPASE: 0 (low) to 360 (high)&numsp;64.1 ± 46.71.04.004&numsp;66.0 ± 48.10.93<.001 Smoking status  NonsmokerNA141 (33.7)1.00NA120 (35.2)1.00NA  Former smokerNA247 (59.1)1.05.69193 (56.6)1.01.95  Current smokerNA30 (7.2)1.28.2428 (8.2)1.14.60 Alcohol use, AUDIT score&par;  00 to 40233 (56.0)1.00NA185 (54.7)1.00NA  10 to 4075 (18.0)1.04.8062 (18.3)1.04.81  ≥20 to 40108 (26.0)1.32.0391 (26.9)0.68.02Physical Timed rapid gait, sBack and forth over  a 3-m course12.7 ± 7.20.99.1712.7 ± 7.51.02<.001 Timed chair stands, sUp and down 3 times12.4 ± 5.70.99.4012.4 ± 5.91.03.004 Balance scoreSPPB: 0 (poor) to 4 (good)&numsp;2.3 ± 1.31.07.12&numsp;2.3 ± 1.30.85.001 Grip strength, kgHandheld dynamometer21.4 ± 8.31.00.9521.2 ± 8.30.97.002Other Mild disability (1-2 ADLs) at onsetNA319 (76.0)1.68<.001283 (82.7)1.14.45 Hospitalized in the month of disability onsetNA230 (54.8)1.36.006201 (58.8)1.42.008 Duration of prior disability episode, mo¶NANANANA&numsp;3.3 ± 6.81.08<.001Abbreviations: ADL, activities of daily living; AUDIT, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test; CES-D, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; MOS, Medical Outcomes Survey Social Support Scale; NA, data not applicable; PASE, Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly; SPPB, Short Physical Performance Battery balance component.*Data are given as mean±SD or number (percentage). Percentages are based on totals for each factor and may not total 100 because of rounding.†Hazard ratios for continuous variables are per 1-point increase, except those for habitual physical activity, which are per 10-point increase. Hazard ratios for time to recovery can be interpreted as the relative hazard (similar to a relative risk) of recovering independent ADL function, with values greater than 1 indicating a higher likelihood of recovery. Hazard ratios for duration of recovery can be interpreted as the relative hazard of recurrent ADL disability or death, with values less than 1 indicating a lower likelihood of recurrent disability and, thus, a longer duration of recovery. Hazard ratios are adjusted for time from most recent comprehensive examination to disability onset.‡Hypertension, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, stroke, diabetes mellitus, arthritis, hip fracture, chronic lung disease, and cancer (other than minor skin cancers).§Calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters.&par;Alcohol use was nonlinearly related to both outcomes, and was categorized into quartiles. 0 indicates low-risk use; 40, higher-risk use.¶Data included only for duration of recovery. Time to recovery was determined for each participant’s first disability episode, so there was no prior episode.During monthly telephone interviews, disability in each of the 4 key ADLs was assessed with the question, “At the present time, do you need help from another person to” perform the task. Participants who required personal assistance with at least 1 ADL were considered disabled. The reliability of our disability assessment was substantial for reassessments within 48 hours (κ = 0.75) and almost perfect for reassessments completed the same day (κ = 1.0).Disability in 3 or 4 ADLs was defined as severe; and in 1 or 2 ADLs, as mild. Recovery occurred when a participant reported no disability in any of the 4 ADLs. Restricted activity, defined as staying in bed for half a day or cutting down on one’s usual activities,and overnight hospitalizations during the past month were also ascertained. Follow-up interviews were included through May 19, 2003, when 151 (20.0%) of the participants had died and 31 (4.1%) had dropped out. Data are otherwise available for 99.4% of the remaining 31 244 monthly interviews.STATISTICAL ANALYSISPotential prognostic factors, chosen from factors previously associated with either disabilityor recovery,were evaluated during the most recent comprehensive assessment or the telephone interview in the month of disability onset. Variables were modeled as continuous unless there was evidence of a nonlinear relationship with either outcome. To observe the statistical assumption of independence, we included only the first episode of disability for each participant. We assessed the associations of potential prognostic factors with time to and duration of recovery using proportional hazards regression, because these models allow full use of our monthly data. Furthermore, when recovery is evaluated at a single time point, as in logistic regression analysis, any intervening transitions between disability and independence are ignored. Factors associated with time to outcome in the bivariate analyses (P<.10) were considered in the multivariable analyses, which were adjusted for the time from the most recent comprehensive assessment to disability onset. Many of the potential predictors were highly correlated, particularly the physical measures, physical activity, and self-efficacy (Spearman rfor all comparisons, 0.3-0.6). Because of this high collinearity, backward elimination with a criterion of P<.05 was used to identify the independent predictors.All multivariable models had at least 20 events per variable.All Pvalues are 2-tailed, and all analyses were performed using SAS statistical software, version 8.Time to RecoveryParticipants were entered into the analytic sample (n = 420) at their first episode of disability and were observed until they recovered independence, died, or reached the end of follow-up. Participants who died were censored at the time of death in the primary analysisand at the end of the study (May 19, 2003) in a secondary analysis. We defined zero timeas the first month of disability. Results were confirmed with logistic regression models of recovery at 3 months. To address the concern that recovery episodes lasting only 1 month might be due to measurement error, we repeated our primary analysis for recovery lasting 2 consecutive months or longer (ie, “persistent”).Duration of RecoveryParticipants were entered into the analytic sample (n = 342) at the time of recovery of independence. Duration was defined as the time from recovery to the first month of recurrent disability or death. Participants who experienced neither recurrent disability nor death were censored at the end of follow-up. In addition to the potential predictors considered for time to recovery, the duration of the preceding disability episode was considered as a potential predictor of duration of recovery.RESULTSThe descriptive statistics for the potential prognostic factors among the 420 participants who experienced disability are presented in Table 1. Participants had a range of 0 to 6 chronic conditions. The most common conditions were hypertension (n = 239), arthritis (n = 156), diabetes mellitus (n = 94), and myocardial infarction (n = 89). Of the 420 participants, 342 (81.4%) regained independent ADL function after a mean ± SD follow-up of 4.9 ± 0.5 months; 215 participants (51.2%) recovered after a single month of disability. Among the remaining 127 participants, the most common patterns of recovery were stable disability until recovery (n = 59) and a gradual decrease in the number of ADL disabilities (n = 38). The characteristics of disability and recovery by specific ADL disabilities in the month of onset are presented in Table 2. Bathing disability was most common, and walking disability was least common, with most participants having other concurrent ADL disabilities. The patterns of recovery among the 4 ADLs were comparable.Table 2. Disability and Recovery Characteristics for 420 Subjects by Specific ADL Disability in the Month of Disability OnsetCharacteristicBathing (n = 293)Dressing (n = 224)Transferring (n = 139)Walking (n = 130)Concurrent disability in ≥1 other ADLs*171 (58.4)164 (73.2)99 (71.2)114 (87.7)Recovered*†226 (77.1)166 (74.1)95 (68.3)88 (67.7)Duration of recovery, mo‡6 (2-18)6 (2-18)8 (3-20)7 (2-18)Recurrent disability§164 (72.6)120 (72.3)65 (68.4)63 (71.6)Recurrent disability in same ADL&par;126 (76.8)75 (62.5)25 (38.5)21 (33.3)Abbreviation: See Table 1.*Data are given as number (percentage) of the total in each group.†Defined as complete recovery of independence in all ADLs.‡Data are given as median (interquartile range).§Data are given as number (percentage) of those who recovered. Only one participant, disabled in bathing alone, experienced death without recurrent disability.&par;Data are given as number (percentage) of those with a recurrent disability. For example, of those participants with a bathing disability who subsequently recovered full independence and then developed recurrent disability, 76.8% were again disabled in bathing. These results are consistent with the initial pattern of disability.The bivariate associations of potential prognostic factors with time to recovery are presented in Table 1. In multivariable analyses, habitual physical activity, mild disability, and hospitalization remained independent predictors of time to recovery (Table 3). These same variables were independent predictors of recovery at 3 months. When the analysis was repeated for persistent recovery, the effect of hospitalization was considerably reduced (hazard ratio = 1.05, P = .70). Censoring participants who died at the end of the study period had no effect on the results.Table 3. Independent Predictors of Time to Recovery of Independent ADL Function Among Newly Disabled Older PersonsCharacteristicHazard Ratio (95% Confidence Interval)*PValueHabitual physical activity,  per 10 points1.04 (1.02-1.07)<.001Mild disability  at onset (1-2 ADLs)1.47 (1.08-2.01).01Hospitalized in the month  of disability onset1.28 (1.01-1.63).05Abbreviation: See Table 1.*Hazard ratios are adjusted for the time from the most recent comprehensive assessment to disability onset. Cognitive function, functional self-efficacy, and alcohol use were initially considered for the model, but were eliminated in the selection of the best model. Hazard ratios can be interpreted as the relative hazard of recovering independent ADL function, with values greater than 1 indicating a higher likelihood of recovery.The descriptive statistics for the potential prognostic factors among the 342 participants who recovered are also presented in Table 1. Of these 342 participants, 251 (73.4%) experienced recurrent disability or death after a mean ± SD follow-up of 7.3 ± 8.5 months; 72 (21.1%) experienced only 1 month of recovery. Of these 72 participants, 57 (79.2%) had subsequent periods of independence, 46 (63.9%) had subsequent periods lasting 2 months or longer, and 37 (51.4%) were hospitalized or had restricted activity during the month of their recurrent disability.The associations of potential prognostic factors with duration of recovery are presented in Table 1. Age, habitual physical activity, self-efficacy, and duration of the prior disability episode remained independent predictors of duration of recovery in multivariable analyses (Table 4). These results did not change appreciably in subsequent analyses that omitted the 3 ADL items from the self-efficacy scale and that considered participants with only a single month of subsequent independence as nonrecovered for the remainder of the follow-up. In a model that did not include duration of the prior disability episode, the other 3 independent predictors remained the same, and no new candidate predictors were significant.Table 4. Independent Predictors of Duration of Recovery of Independent ADL Function Among Newly Disabled Older PersonsCharacteristicHazard Ratio (95% Confidence Interval)*PValueAge (in years)1.03 (1.01-1.06).01Habitual physical activity,  per 10 points0.96 (0.93-0.99).01Functional self-efficacy,  per point0.97 (0.95-0.99)<.001Duration of prior disability  episode, per month1.09 (1.05-1.12)<.001Abbreviation: See Table 1.*Hazard ratios are adjusted for the time from the most recent comprehensive assessment to disability onset and the duration of the preceding disability episode. Male sex, depressive symptoms, social activity, alcohol use, timed gait, timed chair stands, balance, grip strength, and hospitalization in the month of disability onset were initially included in the model, but were eliminated in the selection of the best model. Hazard ratios can be interpreted as the relative hazard of recurrent ADL disability or death, with values less than 1 indicating a lower likelihood of recurrent disability and, thus, a longer duration of recovery.COMMENTIn this prospective cohort study, which included monthly assessments of ADL function, we found that habitual physical activity, the initial severity of disability, and hospitalization in the month of disability onset were independently associated with time to recovery of independent ADL function among newly disabled community-dwelling older persons. Furthermore, among persons who had recovered, we found that habitual physical activity, age, self-efficacy, and the duration of the prior disability episode were independently associated with duration of recovery.Habitual physical activity was a strong independent predictor of time to and duration of recovery. Multiple previous studies have demonstrated a strong association between habitual physical activity and maintenance of functional independence,and several randomized trials have shown that exercise-based interventions can slow or prevent functional decline among older persons.As a potentially modifiable factor, physical activity represents an attractive target for interventions designed to promote recovery and maintenance of ADL independence.We found that time to recovery is also dependent on the initial severity of disability and on hospitalization in the month of disability onset. Counterintuitively, hospitalization during the month of disability onset was associated with shorter time to recovery, indicating that older persons who develop disability in response to an event leading to hospitalization are more likely to recover than those whose disability develops insidiously, perhaps because of gradual progression of underlying conditions. This association, which was not attributable to the censoring of participants who died, may reflect different pathways to disability, such as the catastrophic vs progressive pathways described by Ferrucci and colleagues.The receipt of rehabilitative services after hospitalization is another possible explanation for this finding. Interventions that quickly identify and ameliorate the effects of events leading to hospitalization may facilitate recovery by decreasing the severity of disability. For example, efforts to increase mobility during hospital stays are associated with less functional decline in older persons,and might also lead to more rapid recovery. Further research is warranted to evaluate the effects of rehabilitative services on the recovery process and to better characterize the events that precipitate disability.While several previous studies have found that younger age is associated with a higher rate of recovery among older persons,our findings of no age effect are consistent with those of Hansen and colleagues,who studied recovery from disability 1 month after hospitalization. One possible explanation for this discrepancy is the difference in the length of the assessment intervals between our study and others. We found that younger age was associated with longer duration of recovery, indicating that older persons who recover are more likely to experience recurrent disability or death over 6 to 12 months and, thus, would have been classified as “not recovered” in prior studies with assessment intervals of 6 months or longer.The monthly assessments of function provided a unique opportunity to examine predictors of the duration of recovery among older persons who recovered independent function. In addition to habitual physical activity, we found that younger age, greater self-efficacy, and duration of the prior disability episode were independent predictors of longer duration of recovery. To help interpret the magnitude of the hazard ratios, we offer 2 examples. First, walking for 30 minutes 5 days a week would add 50 points to the physical activity score,which would reduce the likelihood of recurrent disability by about 20%. Second, a change from being fairly to completely confident on 5 of the 10 self-efficacy activities would reduce the likelihood of recurrent disability by 26%. It is unlikely that self-efficacy is simply a surrogate for recurrent disability because participants were explicitly asked about their confidence rather than their actual performance of the activities, self-efficacy was assessed before the disabling event, and our results did not change after the 3 ADL questions were omitted from the efficacy scale.The duration of the prior disability episode was strongly associated with the duration of recovery. It is unlikely that this association is attributable to participants with longer disability durations having less subsequent follow-up during which to experience recurrent disability or death. Because the duration of total follow-up in our study was much longer than the durations of disability and recovery, we were able to observe nearly three quarters of participants until recurrent disability or death. In addition, disability durations were shorter and recovery durations were substantially longer among those who remained independent compared with those who experienced recurrent disability or death (data not shown), suggesting that the association between the durations of disability and recovery was not an artifact of limited follow-up. Recent research has demonstrated that a history of disability, even only of 1 or 2 months, is strongly associated with future disability and death.This finding and those of the present study suggest that history of disability, including attributes such as duration and number of episodes, may be an important determinant of subsequent disability and recovery. While some previous studies have incorporated multiple transitions between disabled and independent states in models of the disabling process,the effects of prior disability episodes on subsequent recovery have not been explicitly considered. Future studies will need to incorporate multiple episodes of disability and recovery and account for the effects of disability history.Physical measures, particularly gait speed, have consistently been shown in previous studies to be strong independent predictors of disability.Although all of our physical measures were significant predictors of recurrent disability in bivariate analyses, none were identified as independent predictors. There are several possible explanations for this apparent discrepancy. First, in contrast to other studies, our outcome was recurrent disability, contingent on recovery from a previous episode of disability. Second, our physical measures were assessed before the initial disability episode and may have been altered more by the intervening disabling event than other potential predictors, such as self-efficacy. Third, the physical measures were highly correlated with physical activity and self-efficacy.Because many of the prognostic factors identified in bivariate analyses were highly intercorrelated, the independent predictors we identified may not be the best prognostic factors in other populations.Other significant factors from the bivariate analyses may still have effects on recovery, either directly or through their effect on the independent factors. For example, improving balance and gait through physical therapy or exercise may increase the duration of recovery either directly or indirectly through enhancement of self-efficacy or increased physical activity.With the exception of habitual physical activity, the factors associated with time to recovery differed from those associated with duration of recovery. Time to recovery was most strongly associated with factors related to the onset of disability (ie, the type of precipitating event), while duration of recovery was more strongly associated with factors previously associated with risk for disability.Some of these are indicators of frailty, defined as a state of reduced physiologic reserve associated with increased susceptibility to disability.Our bivariate results provide additional support for a mechanistic difference, because few of the factors that predicted time to recovery also predicted duration of recovery. Because older persons who have recently recovered independent function are at high risk for recurrent disability,they represent an important target population for interventions to promote maintenance of independence. We recognize that the associations found in our epidemiologic study support, but do not prove, causation. Randomized trials will be needed to determine if interventions directed at the identified predictors can alter disability outcomes.Patterns of recovery among the 4 key ADLs were comparable. Although dressing and bathing may be more affected by some risk factors (eg, deficits in cognitive or upper extremity function) than walking and transferring, disability for each of these activities is likely multifactorial. Further research is needed to determine whether similar mechanisms account for recovery and maintenance of independence for these different ADLs.It is unlikely that brief recovery durations (ie, only 1 month) were attributable to measurement error. First, most participants with brief recoveries experienced subsequent periods of independence. Second, most recurrent episodes were preceded by hospitalization or restricted activity. Third, our disability assessment was highly reliable. These brief recoveries may reflect unstable disability, defined as substantial fluctuations in function with minor external events.Because brief periods of disability have considerable prognostic importance,brief periods of recovery may also be clinically important.We were unable to determine the precise cause of our participants’ disability, which may not be readily apparent in the absence of a catastrophic event.Disability is multifactorial,and many episodes of disability are not preceded by a problem leading to hospitalization or restricted activity.Many older persons, for example, report common symptoms, such as pain and fatigue, as the cause of prevalent disability,and recent evidence indicates that events leading to restricted activity, another multifactorial process,are independently associated with decline in ADL function.Although the time to and duration of recovery likely differ depending on the specific events precipitating disability, determination of the causes of individual episodes is complex and beyond the scope of this study.Because persons with slow gait speed were oversampled, our population may have had lower rates of recovery and levels of physical activity and self-efficacy than a population-based sample of older adults. Because our participants were members of a single health plan in a small urban area, our results may not be generalizable to older persons in other settings. However, our population reflects the demographic characteristics of persons 65 years or older in New Haven County, Connecticut, which are comparable to the United States as a whole with the exception of race.Furthermore, the high participation and follow-up rates and the paucity of missing data enhance the generalizability of our findings.In summary, habitual physical activity is an important predictor of time to and duration of recovery. Because the other independent predictors for time to recovery differ from those for maintenance of recovery, different mechanisms may underlie these 2 outcomes, suggesting that different interventions may be required to promote recovery than to maintain independent ADL function.Correspondence:Susan E. Hardy, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, 20 York St, Tompkins Basement 15, New Haven, CT 06504 (susan.hardy@yale.edu).Accepted for Publication: August 20, 2004.Funding/Support:This study was supported in part by grant R01AG17560 from the National Institute on Aging, Bethesda, Md; a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, NJ; the Paul Beeson Physician Faculty Scholar in Aging Research; and a grant from the Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation, West Hartford, Conn. The study was conducted at the Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center, Yale University School of Medicine (grant P30AG21342). Dr Hardy is a student in the Investigative Medicine Program at Yale University School of Medicine (grant K30HL004145), and is supported by training grant T32AG1934 from the National Institute on Aging and a Pfizer/AGS Foundation for Health in Aging Junior Faculty Scholar award. Dr Gill is the recipient of Midcareer Investigator Award K24AG021507 in Patient-Oriented Research from the National Institute on Aging.Previous Presentation:This study was presented at the Annual Scientific Meeting of the Gerontological Society of America; November 23, 2003; San Diego, Calif.Acknowledgment:We thank Joseph Agostini, MD, for his careful review of an earlier version of the manuscript; Denise Shepard, BSN, Martha Oravetz, RN, Shirley Hannan, RN, Andrea Benjamin, BSN, Alice Kossack, Barbara Foster, Shari Lani, Alice Van Wie, and the late Bernice Hebert, RN, for assistance with data collection; Evelyne Gahbauer, MD, MPH, for data management and programming; Wanda Carr and Geraldine Hawthorne for assistance with data entry and management; Peter Charpentier, MPH, for development of the participant tracking system; and Joanne McGloin, MDiv, MBA, for leadership and advice as the project director.REFERENCESKGMantonA longitudinal study of functional change and mortality in the United States.J Gerontol198843S153S1612971088LMVerbruggeJMReomaALGruber-BaldiniShort-term dynamics of disability and well-being.J Health Soc Behav199435971178064125SEHardyTMGillRecovery from disability among community-dwelling older persons.JAMA20042911596160215069047MCreeKCCarriereCLSoskolneMSuarez-AlmazorFunctional dependence after hip fracture.Am J Phys Med Rehabil20018073674311562555JPMichelPHoffmeyerCKlopfensteinMBruchezBGrabCLd’EpinayPrognosis of functional recovery 1 year after hip fracture: typical patient profiles through cluster analysis.J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci200055M508M51510995048GVOstirJSGoodwinKSMarkidesKJOttenbacherJBalfourJMGuralnikDifferential effects of premorbid physical and emotional health on recovery from acute events.J Am Geriatr Soc20025071371811982673TMGillJTRobisonMETinettiPredictors of recovery in activities of daily living among disabled older persons living in the community.J Gen Intern Med1997127577629436895LGBranchSKatzKKniepmannJAPapsideroA prospective study of functional status among community elders.Am J Public Health1984742662686696160TMGillSEHardyCSWilliamsUnderestimation of disability among community-living older persons.J Am Geriatr Soc2002501492149712383145JMGuralnikLFerrucciUnderestimation of disability occurrence in epidemiological studies of older people: is research on disability still alive?J Am Geriatr Soc2002501599160112383164TMGillMMDesaiEAGahbauerTRHolfordCSWilliamsRestricted activity among community-living older persons: incidence, precipitants, and health care utilization.Ann Intern Med200113531332111529694MFFolsteinSEFolsteinPRMcHugh“Mini-Mental State”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician.J Psychiatr Res1975121891981202204FJKohoutLFBerkmanDAEvansJCornoni-HuntleyTwo shorter forms of the CES-D (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression) depression symptoms index.J Aging Health1993517919310125443METinettiCFMendes de LeonJTDoucetteDIBakerFear of falling and fall-related efficacy in relationship to functioning among community-living elders.J Gerontol199449M140M147CDSherbourneALStewartThe MOS social support survey.Soc Sci Med1991327057142035047JCornoni-HuntleyedDBBrockedAMOstfeldedJOTayloredRBWallaceedMELaffertyedEstablished Populations for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly: Resource Data Book.Bethesda, Md: National Institute on Aging; 1986RAWashburnKWSmithAMJetteCAJanneyThe Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE): development and evaluation.J Clin Epidemiol1993461531628437031MPiccinelliETessariMBortolomasiEfficacy of the alcohol use disorders identification test as a screening tool for hazardous alcohol intake and related disorders in primary care: a validity study.BMJ19973144204249040389TMGillCSWilliamsMETinettiAssessing risk for the onset of functional dependence among older adults: the role of physical performance.J Am Geriatr Soc1995436036097775716JMGuralnikLFerrucciCFPieperLower extremity function and subsequent disability: consistency across studies, predictive models, and value of gait speed alone compared with the short physical performance battery.J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci200055M221M23110811152SGiampaoliLFerrucciFCecchiHand-grip strength predicts incident disability in non-disabled older men.Age Ageing19992828328810475865TRantanenJMGuralnikDFoleyMidlife hand grip strength as a predictor of old age disability.JAMA199928155856010022113JRLandisGCKochThe measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.Biometrics197733159174843571LFerrucciJMGuralnikEMSimonsickMSaliveMCCortiJLangloisProgressive versus catastrophic disability: a longitudinal view of the disablement process.J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci199651M123M1308630705AZLaCroixJMGuralnikLFBerkmanRBWallaceSSatterfieldMaintaining mobility in late life, II: smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, and body mass index.Am J Epidemiol19931378588698484377CFMendes de LeonTAGlassLFBerkmanSocial engagement and disability in a community population of older adults: the New Haven EPESE.Am J Epidemiol200315763364212672683CFMendes de LeonTESeemanDIBakerEDRichardsonMETinettiSelf-efficacy, physical decline, and change in functioning in community-living elders: a prospective study.J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci199651S183S1908673647MEMillerWJRejeskiBAReboussinTRTen HaveWHEttingerPhysical activity, functional limitations, and disability in older adults.J Am Geriatr Soc2000481264127211037014JMGuralnikKCLandDBlazerGGFillenbaumLGBranchEducational status and active life expectancy among older blacks and whites.N Engl J Med19933291101168510687TMGillCSWilliamsMETinettiThe combined effects of baseline vulnerability and acute hospital events on the development of functional dependence among community-living older persons.J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci199954M377M38310462171GAmblerARBradyPRoystonSimplifying a prognostic model: a simulation study based on clinical data.Stat Med20022138033822JConcatoPPeduzziTRHolfordARFeinsteinImportance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards analysis, I: background, goals, and general strategy.J Clin Epidemiol199548149515018543963SAS Institute IncSAS/STAT User’s Guide, Version 8.Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2000RArriagadaLERutqvistAKramarHJohanssonCompeting risks determining event-free survival in early breast cancer.Br J Cancer1992669519571419642ARFeinsteinClinical Epidemiology: the Architecture of Clinical Research.Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Co; 1985SCWuSYLeuCYLiIncidence of and predictors for chronic disability in activities of daily living among older people in Taiwan.J Am Geriatr Soc1999471082108610484250LFerrucciGIzmirlianSLeveilleSmoking, physical activity, and active life expectancy.Am J Epidemiol199914964565310192312AEStuckJMWalthertTNikolausCJBulaCHohmannJCBeckRisk factors for functional status decline in community-living elderly people: a systematic literature review.Soc Sci Med19994844546910075171TMGillDIBakerMGottschalkPNPeduzziHAlloreAByersA program to prevent functional decline in physically frail, elderly persons who live at home.N Engl J Med20023471068107412362007EFBinderKBSchechtmanAAEhsaniEffects of exercise training on frailty in community-dwelling older adults: results of a randomized, controlled trial.J Am Geriatr Soc2002501921192812473001FLiPHarmerEMcAuleyAn evaluation of the effects of Tai Chi exercise on physical function among older persons: a randomized controlled trial.Ann Behav Med20012313914611394556BWPenninxSPMessierWJRejeskiPhysical exercise and the prevention of disability in activities of daily living in older persons with osteoarthritis.Arch Intern Med20011612309231611606146AMJetteMLachmanMMGiorgettiExercise—it’s never too late: the strong-for-life program.Am J Public Health19998966729987467WHEttingerJrRBurnsSPMessierA randomized trial comparing aerobic exercise and resistance exercise with a health education program in older adults with knee osteoarthritis: the Fitness Arthritis and Seniors Trial (FAST).JAMA199727725318980206HSiebensHAronowDEdwardsZGhasemiA randomized controlled trial of exercise to improve outcomes of acute hospitalization in older adults.J Am Geriatr Soc2000481545155211129741CJBrownSKFriedkinSKInouyePrevalence and outcomes of low mobility in hospitalized older patients.J Am Geriatr Soc2004521263127015271112KHansenJMahoneyMPaltaRisk factors for lack of recovery of ADL independence after hospital discharge.J Am Geriatr Soc19994736036510078901TMGillBKurlandThe prognostic effect of prior disability episodes among nondisabled community-living older persons.Am J Epidemiol20031581090109614630605MLagergrenDisability transitions in an area-based system of long-term care for the elderly and disabled.Health Policy199428153174CFMendes de LeonLABeckettGGFillenbaumBlack-white differences in risk of becoming disabled and recovering from disability in old age: a longitudinal analysis of two EPESE populations.Am J Epidemiol19971454884979063338CFMendes de LeonTAGlassLABeckettTESeemanDAEvansLFBerkmanSocial networks and disability transitions across eight intervals of yearly data in the New Haven EPESE.J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci199954S162S17210363047LABeckettDBBrockJHLemkeAnalysis of change in self-reported physical function among older persons in four population studies.Am J Epidemiol19961437667788610686SStudenskiSPereraDWallacePhysical performance measures in the clinical setting.J Am Geriatr Soc20035131432212588574KVan SteenDCurranJKramerMulticollinearity in prognostic factor analyses using the EORTC QLQ-C30: identification and impact on model selection.Stat Med20022138653884DMBuchnerEHWagnerPreventing frail health.Clin Geriatr Med199281171576567AJCampbellDMBuchnerUnstable disability and the fluctuations of frailty.Age Ageing1997263153189271296WHEttingerJrLPFriedTHarrisLShemanskiRSchulzJRobbinsSelf-reported causes of physical disability in older people: the Cardiovascular Health Study.J Am Geriatr Soc199442103510447930326GIKempenLMVerbruggeSSMerrillJOrmelThe impact of multiple impairments on disability in community-dwelling older people.Age Ageing19982759560412675099LMVerbruggeJMLepkowskiYImanakaComorbidity and its impact on disability.Milbank Q1989674504842534562LFerrucciJMGuralnikMPahorMCCortiRJHavlikHospital diagnoses, Medicare charges, and nursing home admissions in the year when older persons become severely disabled.JAMA19972777287349042845TMGillHAlloreTRHolfordZGuoThe development of insidious disability in activities of daily living among community-living older persons.Am J Med2004117484491TMGillHAlloreTRHolfordZGuoPhysical frailty, intervening events, and the development of disability in activities of daily living among community-living older persons.JAMA200429221152124US Census BureauAmerican FactFinder.Available at: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed May 29, 2003MSzkloPopulation-based cohort studies.Epidemiol Rev19982081899762511

Journal

JAMA Internal Medicine – American Medical Association

Published: Jan 10, 2005

There are no references for this article.