4.2 Article

Associations of Handgrip Asymmetry With Impaired Health-Related Quality of Life Among Older Adults in South Korea: A Cross-Sectional Study Using National Survey Data

期刊

ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 34, 期 6-7, 页码 649-659

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/10105395221106629

关键词

aged; functional laterality; hand strength; quality of life; weakness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found associations between handgrip strength, handgrip asymmetry, and health-related quality of life among South Korean older adults. The findings highlight the importance of measuring both handgrip strength and asymmetry in assessing health-related quality of life in older adults.
This study aimed to examine the associations of handgrip strength (HGS) and asymmetry with health-related quality of life among South Korean older adults. We enrolled 7395 older adults from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Health-related quality of life was measured using the EuroQol-5 Dimension. Weakness was defined as a HGS of <26 kg for men and <18 kg for women. Handgrip strength symmetry was defined as an HGS ratio of 0.9:1.1, and HGS asymmetry was defined as a ratio outside that range. Data were analyzed using the Rao-Scott chi(2), F test, and multivariate logistic regression. Compared with those in the symmetric HGS and not weak group, those in the asymmetric HGS and weak group had impaired health-related quality of life for all variables among men (odds ratios [ORs] = 1.67-3.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.14, 6.27]). A greater risk of impaired self-care (SC; odds ratio [OR] = 2.33, 95% CI [1.67, 3.25]) and anxiety/depression (AD; OR = 1.40, 95% CI [1.04, 1.88]) was observed among women in the asymmetric HGS and weak group. Handgrip weakness and asymmetry are associated with impaired health-related quality of life. Handgrip asymmetry can be a clinical marker of health-related quality of life in older adults and must be measured alongside HGS.

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

4.2
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