Cohort study on living arrangements of older men and women and risk for basic activities of daily living disability: findings from the AGES project

Table 4 Risk of living arrangements on the onset of basic activities of daily living disability

	Men	Women
	HR (95% CI)^a	HR (95% CI)^a
Model 1^b
Living arrangements
Living with spouse (Reference)	1.00	1.00
Living with non-spousal cohabitants	1.39 (1.18–1.64)	1.09 (0.95–1.26)
Living alone	1.42 (1.11–1.83)	1.14 (0.97–1.35)
Model 2^c
Living arrangements
Living with spouse (Reference)	1.00	1.00
Living with non-spousal cohabitants	1.38 (1.16–1.63)	1.08 (0.94–1.24)
Living alone	1.45 (1.12–1.87)	1.19 (1.01–1.40)
Model 3^d
Living arrangements
Living with spouse (Reference)	1.00	1.00
Living with non-spousal cohabitants	1.37 (1.16–1.62)	1.09 (0.95–1.25)
Living alone	1.45 (1.12–1.87)	1.19 (1.01–1.40)
Model 4^e
Living arrangements
Living with spouse (Reference)	1.00	1.00
Living with non-spousal cohabitants	1.32 (1.11–1.57)	1.07 (0.93–1.23)
Living alone	1.34 (1.02–1.76)	1.17 (0.98–1.38)
Model 5^f
Living arrangements
Living with spouse (Reference)	1.00	1.00
Living with non-spousal cohabitants	1.31 (1.10–1.56)	1.08 (0.94–1.24)
Living alone	1.35 (1.03–1.77)	1.16 (0.98–1.38)

^a HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval
^bModel 1: The effect of living arrangements on the outcome variable controlling for age
^cModel 2: Model 1 + education + household income + health variables (self-rated health, presence of illness, depression, instrumental activities of daily living, and subjective cognitive complaints)
^dModel 3: Model 2 + heath-related behavior variables (body mass index, alcohol consumption, smoking habits, and daily walking time) were controlled
^eModel 4: Model 2 + social support variables (emotional support received, emotional support provided, instrumental support received, and instrumental support provided) were controlled
^fModel 5: All covariates were controlled

ISSN: 1471-2318