4.7 Article

Physical Functioning among Women 80 Years of Age and Older With and Without a Cancer History

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/gerona/glv073

关键词

Cancer; Physical function; Comorbidities; Women; Survivor

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute at the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHSN268201100046C, HHSN268201100001C, HHSN268201100002C, HHSN268201100003C, HHSN268201100004C, HHSN271201100004C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Females 80 years and older comprise 22% of the total U.S. survivor population, yet the impact of cancer on the physical well-being of women is this age group has not been well characterized. Methods: We compared women, 80 years of age and older in the Women's Health Initiative extension 2, who did (n = 2,270) and did not (n = 20,272) have an adjudicated history of cancer during Women's Health Initiative enrollment; analyses focused on women >2-years postcancer diagnosis. The physical functioning subscale of the RAND-36 was the primary outcome. Demographic, health-status, and psychosocial covariates were drawn from Women's Health Initiative assessments. Analysis of covariance was used to examine the effect of cancer history on physical function, with and without adjustment for covariates. Results: In adjusted models, women with a history of cancer reported significantly lower mean physical functioning (56.6, standard error [SE] 0.4) than those without a cancer history (58.0, SE 0.1), p = .002. In these models, younger current age, lower body mass index, increased physical activity, higher self-rated health, increased reported happiness, and the absence of noncancer comorbid conditions were all associated with higher physical functioning in both women with and without a history of cancer. Conclusions: Women older than 80 years of age with a cancer history have only a moderately lower level of physical function than comparably aged women without a cancer history. Factors associated with higher levels of physical functioning were similar in both groups.

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

4.7
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