4.5 Article

The association between different cognitive domains and age in a multi-centre study of middle-aged and older European men

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY
卷 24, 期 11, 页码 1257-1266

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/gps.2255

关键词

epidemiology; cognitive function; ageing; population survey; male health; multilevel analysis

资金

  1. Commission of the European Communities [QLK6-CT-2001-00258]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives We determined levels of cognitive functioning in community dwelling men aged 40-79 (n = 3265) from eight European centres and investigated to what extent cognitive performance varied between centres, the association between different cognitive domains and age, educational level, co-morbidity and lifestyle factors and the respective contributions of centre and individual factors to cognitive performance. Methods Cognitive domains assessed were visuo-constructional ability and Visual memory (Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure test, ROCF), topographical memory (Camden Topographical Recognition Memory test, CTRM) and processing speed (Digit-Symbol Substitution test, DSST). Results There were significant between-centre differences in all four cognitive test scores. Using multilevel linear regression analysis (MLRA), age, education, depression, physical performance and smoking were independent predictors of cognitive function and these variables explained 10-13% of the variation in cognitive scores between centres and 17-36% of the variation in scores between individuals within centres. Conclusion Our data suggest that although a proportion of the variance in cognitive function among European men is explained by individual level differences, a significant proportion is due to contextual phenomenon. Such contextual factors need to be considered when analysing multi-centre data and European men should not be treated as homogeneous when assessing cognitive performance using existing instruments. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据