Skip to main content

Multivariate analysis of independent determinants of ADL/IADL and quality of life in the elderly

Abstract

Background

This study evaluated the determinants of disability and quality of life in elderly people who participated at the multi-centred RubiN project (Regional ununterbrochen betreut im Netz) in Germany.

Methods

Baseline data of the subjects aged 70 years and older of the RubiN project were used and only subjects with complete data sets were considered for the ensuing analysis (complete case analysis (CCA)).

Disability was examined using the concepts of ADL (activities of daily living) and IADL (instrumental activities of daily living). Subjects exhibiting one or more deficiencies in ADL respectively IADL were considered as ADL respectively IADL disabled. Quality of life was assessed using the WHOQOL-BREF and the WHOQOL-OLD. Applying multivariate analysis, sociodemographic factors, psychosocial characteristics as well as the functional, nutritional and cognitive status were explored as potential determinants of disability and quality of life in the elderly.

Results

One thousand three hundred seventy-five subjects from the RubiN project exhibited data completeness regarding baseline data. ADL and IADL disability were both associated with the respective other construct of disability, sex, a reduced cognitive and functional status as well as domains of the WHOQOL-BREF. Furthermore, ADL disability was related to social participation, while IADL disability was linked to age, education and social support. Sex, ADL and IADL disability, income, social support and social participation as well as the functional status were predictors of the domain ‘Physical Health’ (WHOQOL-BREF). The facet ‘Social Participation’ (WHOQOL-OLD) was affected by both ADL and IADL disability, income, social participation, the nutritional and also the functional status.

Conclusions

Several potential determinants of disability and quality of life were identified and confirmed in this study. Attention should be drawn to prevention schemes as many of these determinants appear to be at least partly modifiable.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

As life expectancy of the global population is increasing, the term Aging is of growing interest in scientific literature [1, 2]. In Germany, the population of people aged 70 years and older rose from 8.1 million in 1990 to 13.4 million in 2020, and is predicted to reach 18.0 million in 2050 if assuming a moderate development of life expectancy and a low net migration. This constitutes a percentage share of people aged 70 years and older of 10% in 1990, 16% in 2020 and 23% in 2050 respectively [3]. Research has extensively discussed possible consequences of an aging population which led to the two contrasting concepts of compression vs. expansion of morbidity. The former comprises the ‘ideal of a long life with a short period of terminal decline’ [4]. Whereas the latter hypothesises that an advanced medical technology will primarily reduce fatal diseases in contrast to nonfatal diseases leading to a promotion of morbidity while diminishing mortality [5]. In fact, literature offers evidence for both theories [6]. This lack of an unequivocal statement in favour of one of the both concepts is probably due to the nature of aging: It is a complex, dynamic and heterogeneous process [6,7,8]. While some individuals manage to maintain their functional status which is considered as ‘successful aging’ or ‘healthy aging’, others experience what is known as ‘usual aging’ [8,9,10]. ‘Usual aging’ connotes an enhanced risk of multimorbidity and a subsequent increase in disability as well as a reduction in functional status and quality of life (QOL), leading to augmented health care costs [11, 12]. According to the World Health Organization’s ICF Model (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health), functioning and disability are the outcome of an interplay between a person’s health status and individual influencing variables such as the environment and personal factors. Thus, disability occurs if the interaction of these factors negatively results in straitened activities and/or participation [13]. Hence the development of disability is deemed to be an individual, complex, multifactorial process usually occurring over a course of several years [14,15,16,17,18]. Moreover disability depends on the respective sociocultural context, and should be assessed according to it [17, 19]. The scope of disability depends on the abilities affected by impairment and the level of this given impairment [17]. Scientific research commonly assesses a person’s disability by using the concepts of activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) [20, 21]. ADL comprises activities indispensable for an independent self-care (feeding, transfer, grooming, toilet use, bathing, walking, stair climbing, dressing and undressing as well as fecal and urinary incontinence) [22, 23]. In contrast IADL refers to abilities needed for an autonomous interaction with the environment (using the telephone, shopping, preparing meals, housekeeping, doing the laundry, moving within the community, taking prescribed medications as well as managing finances) [24, 25]. Considering people aged 70 years and older, studies reported a prevalence of ADL-disability ranging from 13% to approximately 40% [26,27,28] and a prevalence of IADL-Disability ranging from 27% to roughly 40% [26, 28]. It is noteworthy that levels of disability significantly vary between different parts of the world, with the lowest levels observed in Northern and Western Europe [29]. The sociocultural context may also decide which ADL/IADL items are most likely impaired [30]. While ADL primarily rely on physical and health-related factors, IADL are more strongly related to psychosocial, cognitive and economic resources [31,32,33]. Moreover, a decline in IADL usually precedes limitations in ADL, and may therefore serve as a predictor for future ADL-decline [22, 34]. Conversely, independence in ADL acts as a precondition for autonomy in terms of IADL [31, 32]. Although a limitation in ADL and/or IADL may be partly reversible [35, 36], disability is known to have adverse effects. These include a loss of autonomy and dependence on either formal or informal care [37, 38], institutionalisation [39, 40], an increase in mortality rates [41, 42] and health care costs [38] as well as a decline in QOL [43,44,45]. QOL is defined by the WHO as an ‘individuals’ perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns’ [46]. It is recognized as a multifactorial, highly subjective construct which is again affected by a person’s individual socio-cultural context [47,48,49,50,51]. In recent years, particularly health-related quality of life (HRQOL) has become a matter of interest [51, 52], and is commonly used as a clinical endpoint, when evaluating the outcomes of medical procedures [47, 53].

Due to the significance of disability and QOL research intensively investigated possible determinants regarding functional status and QOL, in order to promote prevention and rehabilitation schemes [54,55,56,57,58]. Depending on the socio-cultural context frequently observed determinants of disability and QOL are: social demographics, housing situation, socioeconomical status, psychosocial characteristics (social participation, social support), health behaviour, relevant comorbidities, self-rated health as well as the reciprocal interaction of disability and QOL [20, 54, 58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66]. Regarding the aforementioned determinants, older age represents a risk factor regarding disability [67, 68], while its influence on QOL remains controversial [47, 49, 69]. Female sex is found to negatively affect disability and QOL [44, 70,71,72]. However, it was suggested that both older age and female sex only exert a significant influence on disability and QOL, when acting as mediator variables for other unfavourable risk factors mentioned below. After adjusting for other confounding variables, age and sex partly became insignificant [50, 73,74,75]. In addition, the following variables are predominantly perceived as risk factors concerning both disability and QOL: being single/unmarried and living without a partner [71, 76,77,78], facing constraints regarding socioeconomical status [27, 79,80,81], as well as social participation and support [20, 82,83,84], malnutrition and under- or overweight [70, 85, 86], limited physical activity [68, 87, 88], comorbidities [68, 87, 89, 90] and a low self-rated health status [49, 91, 92]. Moreover, disability serves as a risk factor for QOL, while a reduced QOL also poses a threat to independent functioning [31, 45, 68, 93].

In this paper we present novel insight about the determinants of disability and QOL in a real German ambulant healthcare setting. There are several reasons for this approach. First, to our best knowledge those determinants are usually assessed in mere cross-sectional or cohort studies, but have not been investigated in an actual care setting yet [94,95,96,97,98]. Second, determinants vary between different sociocultural contexts and distinct health policy systems [19, 29, 41]. This holds true even when comparing countries within Western and Northern Europe [99]. When aiming to improve the health care situation of German geriatric patients, it is therefore important to ascertain the actual determinants in a German setting. Third, a complete geriatric assessment is time-consuming and demanding for elderly patients. This has been shown to delay the start of intervention and treatment [100]. The knowledge of specific determinants will help detecting geriatric patients with needs and individuals at risk of developing disability more rapidly [101]. Considering the dynamic nature of disability, an earlier detection of affected patients will promote prevention, intervention and restoration [55]. Forth, as there is still controversy about particular determinants of disability and QOL, this study might provide further insight [102].

Methods

Study population

Data used in this study were collected in the context of the RubiN project. This is a prospective controlled intervention study in an ambulant clinical setting (i.e. geriatric patients of general practices) which was set up to assess the impact of case management for elderly patients [103]. The Ethics Committee of the University of Greifswald approved the study (Application number: BB188/18). In total eight certified practice networks participated in the RubiN project. Five networks served as intervention group, while the other three made up the control group. All patients of the eight practice networks who were aged 70 and over completed the Angelina questionnaire, a screening tool comprising the most important geriatric issues (housing and assistance needs, medication, mobility, senses, recent medical history, cognition, mood) [104]. This questionnaire is available in German only. All of these patients displaying at least two different areas of geriatric need according to the Angelina questionnaire were eligible for participation according to the study’s inclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria were: receiving inpatient or specialised palliative care, having a terminal illness or a bipolar disorder as well as other severe psychiatric medical conditions. Considering the study’s inclusion and exclusion criteria and withdrawal of informed consent, baseline assessment data from 4116 subjects was available. A detailed description of the original study’s sample size calculation can be found elsewhere [103]. After replacing missing items in the WHOQOL questionnaires according to the respective manual [105, 106], 1375 subjects with complete baseline data sets were considered for the ensuing analysis (CCA). There was no imputation of data and no controlled missings were permitted.

Outcome

The outcome variables in this study were disability and QOL.

Disability was examined applying the Barthel index (BI) for ADL according to the Hamburg Classification Manual [107] and the Lawton and Brody scale for IADL [24, 25]. The BI is a valid geriatric assessment measure, and the Hamburg Classification Manual is considered to be the standard operationalisation of the BI in German geriatrics [108, 109]. The BI contains ten items with maximum item scores ranging from five to fifteen depending on the specific item. Full dependence concerning an item is equated with a score of zero. If a person exhibits full dependence in one or more items (i.e., attainment of one or more scores of zero), the person is identified as ADL disabled [110, 111]. Hence, study participants were dichotomised as ADL disabled or ADL independent. The Lawton and Brody scale for IADL is a valid and reliable assessment tool including eight items [112]. An item score of one indicates mastery of the respective task, while an item score of zero displays dependency regarding the particular item. Study participants achieving the maximum total score of 8 were considered as IADL independent, while subjects with one or more IADL dependencies were identified as IADL disabled [7, 71].

QOL was assessed using the WHOQOL-BREF and the WHOQOL-OLD. The WHOQOL-BREF is a valid and reliable short version of the WHOQOL-100 [113,114,115]. It contains the four domains ‘Physical Health, ‘Psychological’, ‘Social Relationships’ and ‘Environment’ which are evaluated with a total of 24 items. In addition, the WHOQOL-BREF includes two general items assessing the global QOL as well as the contentment with the current self-perceived health status (i.e., the ‘Global Score’). The WHOQOL-OLD is commonly used as add-on instrument in a geriatric setting in order to cover specificities regarding the QOL of elderly people [51, 116]. It is composed of six facets, each comprising four items. The six facets are: ‘Sensory Abilities’, ‘Autonomy’, ‘Past, Present and Future Activities’, ‘Social Participation’, ‘Death and Dying’, ‘Intimacy’. The mean of those six facets forms the ‘Total Score’ of the WHOQOL-OLD. For both the WHOQOL-BREF and the WHOQOL-OLD, each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Mean scores of each domain/facet were then transformed into a scale with values ranging from 0 to 100 with higher scores indicating greater levels of QOL [62, 117].

Determinants

The independent variables were chosen based on a preceding literature review and availability in the RubiN project. Regarding sociodemographic determinants age and sex were recorded. Age was used as a continuous variable [118]. The living situation was assessed, and divided into three categories: living alone, living with a spouse/partner, living with others than a spouse/partner in a private house [40]. Place of residence was dichotomised into living in an urban (≥ 20,000 inhabitants) or in a rural area (< 20,000 inhabitants) [110]. Education was recorded, and partitioned into three categories: high (higher education entrance qualification and equivalent), intermediate (attending school for 10 years and equivalent) and low level (attending school for less than 10 years) [119]. Income was examined as well. As subjectivity is deemed to be more important than objective measures in financial matters [49, 69, 120], study participants were asked to subjectively rate their current income as ‘appropriate’, ‘scarce’ or ‘not enough for a living’. The latter two categories were pooled leaving two categories: Those with and those without financial difficulties [110]. Social support was divided into two categories: enjoying support (family, caregivers, others) or lacking support [47]. Social participation was assessed by two questions (meeting with friends, leisure activities). If subjects declared a shortage in any of those areas, they were viewed as lacking social participation [87, 102]. Nutritional status was examined using the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA). It contains 18 items, and encompasses four domains: anthropometric, global, dietary and self-assessment. The maximum total score is 30. Scores between 24 and 30 express a normal status, while scores between 17 and 23.5 indicate a risk of malnutrition. Scores less than 17 signal malnutrition [121]. The cognitive status was examined using the DemTect, a valid, reliable and highly-sensitive screening tool for (mild) cognitive impairment and different types of dementia. The DemTect contains five tasks: transcoding numbers, a semantic verbal fluency task, a numerical sequence in reverse order as well as a word list and a delayed recall of the word list. A maximum score of 18 points can be attained. 13 to 18 points imply an age-appropriate status, 9 to 12 points display a mild cognitive impairment and less than 9 points indicate possible dementia [122, 123]. Finally, functional status was tested using the Timed Up-and-Go Test (TUG). It has been proven to be a valid and reliable screening tool for lacking balancing skills and consequently for increased risk of falls. The TUG quantifies the time needed for a person to rise from a chair, walk three meters, return and to sit back down [124, 125]. As a whole variety of cut-off values for the TUG had been used in previous studies [126], this study adopted the age-specific reference values proposed in a meta-analysis: 10.2 seconds (70–79 years old) and 12.7 seconds (≥ 80 years old) [127]. Using these cut-off values, subjects were classified as better or worse than the age-specific cut-off value.

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis was carried out using JMP Pro 15 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA).

First, we examined the study participants’ descriptive characteristics regarding the frequencies, means and standard deviations of the dependent and independent variables. Descriptive analysis was performed for the complete study sample as well as for those subjects included and excluded for the subsequent analysis. Second, bivariate analysis was performed. Independent variables of ADL and IADL were tested using Chi2-tests based on logistic regression for continuous variables and contingency analysis for categorial variables. Independent variables of QOL were assessed using bivariate correlation for continuous variables and two-sided pooled t-tests respectively ANOVAs for categorial variables. Third, multiple regression models were created in order to identify and confirm independent variables significantly influencing ADL, IADL and QOL (WHOQOL-BREF and -OLD) and to examine the relationship between the outcome variables. The dichotomous dependent variables ADL and IADL were examined using nominal logistic regression, whereas the continuous dependent variables of QOL (domains, facets and global/total scores) were assessed using mean least squares regression. Regression models were tested towards their Lack of Fit and significance, the explained variance R2 was computed. Independent variables within each regression model were analysed using Effect Likelihood Ratio Tests, and significant Parameter Estimates were identified. Odds ratios were calculated for the categorial dependent variables ADL and IADL. For all statistical tests a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics of the whole study sample (N = 4116), thereof N = 1375 persons could be included in the analysis. N = 2741 persons had to be excluded due to missing data. Executed bivariate analysis indicates that there are several significant differences regarding the independent variables between the two latter groups. For example, excluded subjects were significantly older, exhibited larger proportions of ADL respectively IADL disabled persons, rated their quality of life significantly lower in most of the domains of the WHOQOL-BREF and the WHOQOL-OLD and performed worse on the Timed Up-and-Go test.

Table 1 Descriptive Analysis for the total sample, included and excluded participants

The 1375 study participants included in this analysis had a mean age of 80.7 ± 5.6 years with a female percentage share of 64% (women: N = 877, men: 498). 24.8% of the included study participants were ADL disabled, while 45.8% were IADL disabled. Sex did not exert a significant influence on ADL disability (women: 26.45%; men: 21.89%), while significantly more men than women were IADL disabled (women: 42.42%; men: 51.81%).

ADL and IADL

After multivariate analysis (data partly not shown – an additional file shows this analysis in more detail (see Additional file 3), see Table 2), eight variables remained as significant determinants of ADL disability: female sex, IADL disability, higher scores regarding ‘Environment’ and lower scores concerning ‘Physical Health’ and the ‘Global Score’ (WHOQOL-BREF), sufficient social participation as well as a reduction in cognitive and functional status. With regard to the Odds Ratios, a prevalent IADL disability was the dominant risk factor (OR: 7.77, see Table 3).

Table 2 Multivariate analysis - parameter estimates for ADL disability and IADL disability
Table 3 Multivariate analysis - odds ratio for ADL disability and IADL disability

Significant determinants of IADL disability were an older age, male sex, ADL disability, a lower rating regarding ‘Physical Health’ and ‘Environment’ as well as a higher rating in terms of ‘Social Relationships’ (WHOQOL-BREF), having social support and a reduced cognitive and functional status. Attainment of an intermediate education level served as a protective factor regarding IADL disability, while a higher education level did not exert a significant influence. Analogous to ADL disability, the most important determinant of IADL disability was a given ADL disability (OR: 7.76, see Table 3).

WHOQOL-BREF and WHOQOL-OLD

Multivariate analysis displayed the different significant factors of quality of life (data not shown, an additional file shows this analysis in more detail (see Additional file 3)). Significant determinants for a decrease in the domain ‘Physical Health’ were female sex, a prevalent ADL respectively IADL disability, an insufficient income, having social support and a lack of social participation as well as a reduced functional status (see Table 4). ADL respectively IADL disability also yielded a significant negative influence on the domain ‘Social Participation’ alongside scarcity of an adequate income and social participation as well as a reduced nutritional and functional status (see Table 4).

Table 4 Multivariate analysis – parameter estimates for the domain/facet of WHOQOL-BREF and WHOQOL-OLD with the highest R2

Discussion

The significant differences between the 2741 excluded and the 1375 included study participants suggest the presence of a healthy participation effect [111, 128]. The consequence might be an underestimation of disability, an overestimation of QOL and an alteration of the influential factors of both disability and QOL [80, 99]. In turn this could be the reason for variables like ‘Living Situation’ and ‘Rural-Urban’ apparently being insignificant in multivariate analysis despite their relative importance in literature [97].

The reported prevalence of ADL (24.8%) and IADL disability (45.8%, see Table 1) among the elderly implies higher disability rates than found in comparable settings in Ireland (ADL: 13%, IADL: 11%) and Israel (ADL: 6%, IADL: 20%) [68, 129]. Differences in disability levels may stem from specific risk factors in a community or country, divergent health care policies as well as sociocultural factors including different gender roles and distinct confession of disability [19, 30, 96, 99]. As the percentage share of IADL disability exceeds ADL disability in this sample, this may support previous findings of IADL disability preceding ADL disability due to the more complex nature of IADL [22, 31, 34].

The QOL in this study population in terms of the WHOQOL-BREF was considerably higher than in a similar Polish sample (‘Physical Health’: 57.9 vs. 50.9, ‘Psychological’: 66.0 vs. 59.2, ‘Social Relationships’: 68.1 vs. 54.8, ‘Environment’: 70.9 vs. 58.5) [66]. Unfortunately, the majority of previous studies using the WHOQOL questionnaires included subjects aged 60 years and older, hampering a comparison with this study’s sample [47, 62, 130, 131]. The same applies to the German reference data from the WHOQOL-OLD manual [117]. Nevertheless, the independent variable age seems to have a wide influence on QOL with higher age usually being related to a diminished QOL [118, 132].

Multivariate analysis revealed that both ADL and IADL disability were significantly associated with the respective other type of disability: IADL disability was the strongest predictor for ADL disability (OR: 7.77) and vice versa (OR: 7.76). A sizeable intercorrelation between both concepts is in line with previous findings and emphasizes that independence in ADL/IADL serves as a prerequisite for the respective other one [23, 31]. Nevertheless, our results differed largely from the concept of ADL predominantly relying on health-related factors and IADL being mainly based on psychosocial and economic factors [23, 32]. ADL and IADL coincided in many ways, instead of representing two complementing albeit distinct concepts. First, both ADL and IADL disability displayed an inverse correlation with the ‘Physical Health’ domain of QOL. While ADL/IADL disability led to lower scores in the domain ‘Physical Health’, ADL/IADL disability became less likely with higher scores in ‘Physical Health’. This is also in accordance with literature [47, 56]. Second, both ADL and IADL disability had an adverse association with the facet ‘Sensory Abilities’ and the domain ‘Psychological’. Considering the abovementioned concept, one would have expected a segregation with only ADL being linked to the former and solely IADL to the latter. Third, both ADL and IADL disability were significantly accompanied by a low functional status according to the TUG which primarily relies on physical functioning [125]. Forth, neither ADL nor IADL were significantly influenced by the nutritional status which is unanticipated given earlier reports and a supposed sequence of malnutrition leading to frailty which then leads to disability [133,134,135]. However, descriptive statistics reveal that among the 1375 included subjects only 13 were considered to be malnourished according to the MNA. This explains the insignificance of nutritional status in this sample. Fifth, both ADL and IADL disability were significantly related to the cognitive status and weak performances on the DemTect indicating possible dementia. Sixth, ‘Income’ affected neither ADL nor IADL. Perhaps this variable is solely decisive below a certain threshold which was not relevant in this sample [101]. Seventh, only ADL was associated with the variable ‘Social Participation’. In fact, ADL disability led to less complaints about lacking social participation. This might be surprising considering the conviction that low social participation is associated with disability [54, 82]. Applying the model of ‘Selective Optimization with Compensation’ helps explaining this phenomenon: While the level of social participation generally declines with increasing age, ADL disability might force the concerned elderlies to ‘select’ by setting new priorities more closely related to the disability, instead of focusing on the deficient social participation [136, 137]. However, the facet ‘Social Participation’ was indeed negatively associated with both ADL and IADL disability. This seems reasonable as both ADL and IADL independence as well as a sufficient nutritional and functional status are essential for involvement in social activities [138,139,140]. Moreover the facet ‘Social Participation’ was also related to an appropriate income which is the financial basis for some leisure activities (i.e., attending sport events, going on holidays) [141]. Actively engaging with others may help preventing disability and foster the QOL of the elderly [69, 142, 143].

Nonetheless, several results were in accordance with the idea of only IADL building mainly on psychosocial and cognitive resources. First, an intermediate education level exerted a significant protective effect only on IADL, but not on ADL [31]. Interestingly, having attained a high level of education remained insignificant. This could be a consequence of only 10.4% of the sample being assigned to the category ‘high education’, and smaller sample sizes making it harder to reach statistical significance [144]. Second, the domain ‘Social Relationships’ was solely significantly linked to IADL. Albeit in an unexpected direction as a higher QOL regarding ‘Social Relationships’ was associated with IADL disability. The same applied to the variable ‘Social Support’. Despite controversy over the influence of social support on ADL/IADL in the scientific literature, some previous studies revealed similar associations like those reported in this study [83, 145]. An explanation might be that having social support is an indicator for a prevalent or emerging disability [69, 146].

The domain ‘Physical Health’ overlapped mostly with ADL which was displayed in terms of its dependence on ADL disability and aligned associations with IADL disability, ‘Social Support’ and ‘Social Participation’, a reduced functional and nutritional status. However, in contrast to ADL, an appropriate income was associated with higher scores on ‘Physical Health’ which is in line with previous findings [62, 118]. Financial capability may help gaining an advantage within the public health system getting the best care available which then manifests itself in vigorous health and a higher (physical) QOL [80, 147].

Multivariate analysis revealed that both age and sex (partly) exert a significant influence on disability and physical QOL. First, an increased age was only significantly related to IADL disability, neither to ADL disability nor to the domain ‘Physical Health’. Especially the latter contradicts earlier findings [57, 80, 118]. In contrast to IADL, ADL and ‘Physical Health’ rather rely on the geriatric status which is predominantly founded on the biological age, not on the chronological age [60]. Second, women had lower odds of being IADL disabled (OR: 0.52). This was unanticipated, as similar results are rare and most studies report higher odds for women [35, 70, 148]. Interestingly, according to separate analysis of means (data not shown, an additional file shows this analysis in more detail (see Additional file 5)), there was no difference in terms of age between the two sexes (p value 0.5389). This would have been a plausible explanation considering the aforementioned outcome concerning age and IADL.

If IADL disability generally precedes ADL disability, and men are more likely to be IADL disabled, men will be expected to be more likely ADL disabled as well. However, this was not the case in this sample. In fact, women had higher odds of being ADL disabled (OR: 1.72), and scored lower on the domain ‘Physical Health’. Previous research has suggested that men face higher death rates among the studied age groups, while women experience higher incidence rates of ADL disability [42, 91, 149]. Higher death rates among men then lead to a selection of ‘the fittest’ men who in turn display lower ADL disability rates than their female counterparts [150]. Possible reasons are potentially different disability pathways due to physiological differences between both sexes (i.e., hormonal, childbirth) and a distinct structure of reality of life [151,152,153]. A female share of 64% in this study sample may support this theory of women outliving men at the expense of a higher prevalence of ADL disability [152]. Nevertheless, the selection of ‘the fittest’ men in this sample could also be due to disabled men relocating earlier to retirement homes than their female counterparts and therefore missing in this study according to the exclusion criteria. As a result of the cross-sectional nature of this study and unavailability of further relevant health-related information such as depression, pain and physical activity, it was not possible to clarify the following: First, whether IADL precedes ADL disability and if so, whether there is a direct mechanism leading from IADL to ADL disability [22, 34]. Second, whether the observed associations of age/sex with ADL/IADL are due to a direct influence, or whether age/sex function as mediator variables [32, 151].

This study has several limitations. One major limitation is its cross-sectional nature which does not allow assumptions about causality and generalisability to older populations [154] and which does not consider the time of presence of the determinants of disability and quality of life in the aging process. Another limitation concerns the healthy participation effect caused by the exclusion of 2741 subjects due to incomplete baseline data. Another shortcoming of this study concerns the dichotomisation of ADL and IADL ignoring different levels of disability [41, 45]. Moreover, interrater reliability regarding the examiners has to be discussed despite a training course prior to testing [155].

The study has various strengths as well. First, it is a multi-centre study in an actual care setting comprising eight certified practice networks including their GP practices. Despite the study’s cross-sectional entity, this fact enhances its representativity for older adults [156]. Second, it encompasses a large study population reducing the impact of accidental factors and raising the statistical power [144]. Third, the simultaneous exploration of the three concepts of ADL, IADL and QOL, and the study’s multifactorial examination of their determinants as well as the interactions among ADL, IADL and QOL. Forth, using both the WHOQOL-BREF and the WHOQOL-OLD to assess QOL in older people. Despite the WHOQOL-OLD’s proven psychometric properties there is still a scarcity of studies using this questionnaire [62, 157]. Hence, this study’s results may be particularly useful for the classification of future results in terms of the WHOQOL-OLD.

As the R2 values of our 14 multiple regression models ranged between 0.05 and 0.39, future research should focus on significant independent variables not included in this study. These comprise health care use and chronic medical conditions such as vascular disease, impairment of vision and hearing, pain, history of falls, polypharmacy and depression as well as their level of severity [40, 60]. Additionally, lifestyle-related factors like physical activity and consumption of alcohol and smoking should be assessed as well [54, 58].

This study detected and approved several potential determinants of disability and quality of life in the elderly. Attention should be drawn to prevention schemes as many of these determinants like the nutritional and functional status, social participation and education appear to be at least partly modifiable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ADL:

activities of daily living

BI:

Barthel Index

CCA:

complete case analysis

DeGEval:

German Evaluation Society

DFG:

German Research Foundation

GEP:

Good Epidemiological Practice

HRQOL:

health-related quality of life

IADL:

instrumental activities of daily living

ICF:

International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health

MNA:

Mini Nutritional Assessment

OR:

Odds Ratio

QOL:

quality of life

RubiN:

Regional ununterbrochen betreut im Netz

TUG:

Timed Up-and-Go Test

WHO:

World Health Organization

References

  1. Li C-I, Lin C-H, Lin W-Y, Liu C-S, Chang C-K, Meng N-H, et al. Successful aging defined by health-related quality of life and its determinants in community-dwelling elders. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1013. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1013.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. World Health Organization. Ageing. 2021. https://www.who.int/health-topics/ageing#tab=tab_1. Accessed 14 July 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Statistisches Bundesamt. 14. koordinierte Bevoelkerungsvorausberechnung fuer Deutschland. 2022. https://service.destatis.de/bevoelkerungspyramide/. Accessed 14 July 2021.

  4. Fries JF. Aging, frailty, and the compression of morbidity: definite Progress. In: Carey JR, Robine J-M, Michel J-P, Christen Y, editors. Longevity and frailty. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2005. p. 107–17.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Olshansky SJ, Rudberg MA, Carnes BA, Cassel CK, Brody JA. Trading off longer life for worsening health. J Aging Health. 1991;3:194–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/089826439100300205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chatterji S, Byles J, Cutler D, Seeman T, Verdes E. Health, functioning, and disability in older adults—present status and future implications. Lancet. 2015;385:563–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61462-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Campos ACV, Ferreira e Ferreira E, Vargas AMD, Albala C. Aging, Gender and quality of life (AGEQOL) study: factors associated with good quality of life in older Brazilian community-dwelling adults. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:166. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0166-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Rowe JW, Kahn RL. Human aging: usual and successful. Science. 1987;237:143–9. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3299702.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Shinkai S, Kumagai S, Fujiwara Y, Amano H, Yoshida Y, Watanabe S, et al. Predictors for the onset of functional decline among initially non-disabled older people living in a community during a 6-year follow-up. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2003;3:S31–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0594.2003.00094.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. World Health Organization. Ageing: Healthy ageing and functional ability. 2021. https://www.who.int/westernpacific/news/q-a-detail/ageing-healthy-ageing-and-functional-ability. Accessed 13 July 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Marengoni A, Angleman S, Melis R, Mangialasche F, Karp A, Garmen A, et al. Aging with multimorbidity: a systematic review of the literature. Ageing Res Rev. 2011;10:430–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2011.03.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bonneux L, van der Gaag N, Bijwaart G. Demographic epidemiologic projections of long-term care needs in selected European countries: Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and Poland: Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and Poland. SSRN Electron J. 2012;112:1–29. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2033103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. World Health Organization. How to use the ICF: a practical manual for using the international classification of functioning, Disability and Health (ICF): Exposure draft for comment. Geneva; 2013.

  14. Nogueira SL, Ribeiro RCL, Rosado LE, Franceschini SCC, Ribeiro AQ, Pereira ET. Determining factors of functional status among the oldest old. Revista Brasileira de. Fisioterapia. 2010;14:322–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rosa TE, Benício MH, Latorre MR, Ramos LR. Determinant factors of functional status among the elderly. [determinant factors of functional status among the elderly]. Rev Saude Publica. 2003;37:40–8. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0034-89102003000100008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. den Ouden MEM, Schuurmans MJ, Mueller-Schotte S, Brand JS, van der Schouw YT. Domains contributing to disability in activities of daily living. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013;14:18–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2012.08.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Boult C, Kane RL, Louis TA, Boult L, McCaffrey D. Chronic conditions that Lead to functional limitation in the elderly. J Gerontol. 1994;49:M28–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/49.1.m28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Verbrugge LM, Jette AM. The disablement process. Soc Sci Med. 1994;38:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(94)90294-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Khalagi K, Ansarifar A, Fahimfar N, Sanjari M, Gharibzdeh S, Sharifi F, et al. Cardio-metabolic and socio-demographic risk factors associated with dependency in basic and instrumental activities of daily living among older Iranian adults: Bushehr elderly health program. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21:172. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-021-02124-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen Y, Hicks A, While AE. Quality of life and related factors: a questionnaire survey of older people living alone in mainland China. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:1593–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0587-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Storeng SH, Sund ER, Krokstad S. Factors associated with basic and instrumental activities of daily living in elderly participants of a population-based survey: the Nord-Trøndelag health study, Norway. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e018942. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018942.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Spector WD, Katz S, Murphy JB, Fulton JP. The hierarchical relationship between activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:481–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(87)90004-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Candela F, Zucchetti G, Ortega E, Rabaglietti E, Magistro D. Preventing loss of basic activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living in elderly: identification of individual risk factors in a holistic perspective. Holist Nurs Pract. 2015;29:313–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/HNP.0000000000000106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist. 1969;9:179–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/9.3_Part_1.179.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lawton MP. The functional assessment of elderly people. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1971;19:465–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1971.tb01206.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Phelan EA, Williams B, Penninx BWJH, LoGerfo JP, Leveille SG. Activities of daily living function and disability in older adults in a randomized trial of the health enhancement program. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004;59:838–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/59.8.m838.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Arokiasamy P, Uttamacharya U, Jain K, Biritwum RB, Yawson AE, Wu F, et al. The impact of multimorbidity on adult physical and mental health in low- and middle-income countries: what does the study on global ageing and adult health (SAGE) reveal? BMC Med. 2015;13:178. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0402-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Carey EC, Walter LC, Lindquist K, Covinsky KE. Development and validation of a functional morbidity index to predict mortality in community-dwelling elders. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:1027–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.40016.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Wahrendorf M, Reinhardt JD, Siegrist J. Relationships of disability with age among adults aged 50 to 85: evidence from the United States, England and Continental Europe. PLoS One. 2013;8:e71893. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071893.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Chalise HN, Saito T, Kai I. Functional disability in activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living among Nepalese Newar elderly. Public Health. 2008;122:394–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2007.07.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Baltes MM, Mayr U, Borchelt MF, Maas I, Wilms H-U. Everyday competence in old and very old age: an inter-disciplinary perspective. Ageing Soc. 1993;13:657–80. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X00001392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Baltes MM, Maas I, Wilms H-U, Borchelt MF. Alltagskompetenz im Alter: Theoretische Überlegungen und empirische Befunde. In: Mayer KU, Baltes PB, editors. Die Berliner Altersstudie: Ein Projekt der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1st ed. Berlin: Akademie Verlag; 1996. p. 525–42.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Perrig-Chiello P, Perrig WJ, Uebelbacher A, Stähelin HB. Impact of physical and psychological resources on functional autonomy in old age. Psychol Health Med. 2006;11:470–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548500600726633.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ramos LR, Perracini M, Rosa TE, Kalache A. Significance and management of disability among urban elderly residents in Brazil. J Cross Cult Gerontol. 1993;8:313–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00972560.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. d'Orsi E, Xavier AJ, Steptoe A, Oliveira C de, Ramos LR, Orrell M, et al. Socioeconomic and lifestyle factors related to instrumental activity of daily living dynamics: results from the English longitudinal study of ageing. J Am Geriatr Soc 2014;62:1630–1639. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.12990.

  36. Chiu H-C, Mau L-W, Tasi W-L, Hsieh Y-H, Liu H-W. Chronic medical conditions as predictors of functional disability in an older population in Taiwan. Aust J Ageing. 2004;23:19–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6612.2004.00004.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Dunlop DD, Hughes SL, Manheim LM. Disability in activities of daily-living: patterns of change and a hierarchy of disability. Am J Public Health. 1997;87:378–83. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.87.3.378.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Geerts J, Willemé P, Pickard L, King D, Comas-Herrera A, Wittwer J, et al. Projection of use and supply of long-term Care in Europe: policy implications: ENEPRI. Policy Brief. 2012;12.

  39. Sonn U. Longitudinal studies of dependence in daily life activities among elderly persons. Scand J Rehabil Med Suppl. 1996;34:1–35.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Li LW. Predictors of ADL disability trajectories among low-income frail elders in the community. Res Aging. 2005;27:615–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027505279711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Díaz-Venegas C, Wong R. Trajectories of limitations in activities of daily living among older adults in Mexico, 2001-2012. Disabil Health J. 2016;9:524–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2016.01.011.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Jiang J, Tang Z, Meng XJ, Futatsuka M. Demographic determinants for change in activities of daily living: a cohort study of the elderly people in Beijing. J Epidemiol. 2002;12:280–6. https://doi.org/10.2188/jea.12.280.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Haga H, Shibata H, Ueno M, Nagai H, Suyama Y, Matsuzaki T, et al. Factors contributing to longitudinal changes in activities of daily living (ADL): the Koganei study. J Cross Cult Gerontol. 1991;6:91–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117113.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ferrer A, Formiga F, Almeda J, Alonso J, Brotons C, Pujol R. Health-related quality of life in nonagenarians: gender, functional status and nutritional risk as associated factors. Med Clin. 2010;134:303–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcli.2009.06.070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ćwirlej-Sozańska AB, Sozański B, Wiśniowska-Szurlej A, Wilmowska-Pietruszyńska A. An assessment of factors related to disability in ADL and IADL in elderly inhabitants of rural areas of South-Eastern Poland. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2018;25:504–11. https://doi.org/10.26444/aaem/81311.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. The WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41:1403–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00112-k.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Manganelli Girardi Paskulin L, Vianna L, Molzahn AE. Factors associated with quality of life of Brazilian older adults. Int Nurs Rev. 2009;56:109–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-7657.2008.00671.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Yohannes AM, Roomi J, Waters K, Connolly MJ. Quality of life in elderly patients with COPD: measurement and predictive factors. Respir Med. 1998;92:1231–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0954-6111(98)90426-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Smith J, Fleeson W, Geiselmann B, Settersten RA, Kunzmann U. Wohlbefinden im hohen Alter: Vorhersagen aufgrund objektiver Lebensbedingungen und subjektiver Bewertung. In: Mayer KU, Baltes PB, editors. Die Berliner Altersstudie: Ein Projekt der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1st ed. Berlin: Akademie Verlag; 1996. p. 497–523.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Orfila F, Ferrer M, Lamarca R, Tebe C, Domingo-Salvany A, Alonso J. Gender differences in health-related quality of life among the elderly: the role of objective functional capacity and chronic conditions. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63:2367–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.06.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Winkler I, Buyantugs L, Petscheleit A, Kilian R, Angermeyer MC. Die interkulturelle Erfassung der Lebensqualität im Alter: Das WHOQOL-OLD-Projekt. Zeitschrift für Gerontopsychologie Psych. 2003;16:177–92. https://doi.org/10.1024/1011-6877.16.4.177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Schumacher J, Klaiberg A, Brähler E. Diagnostik von Lebensqualität und Wohlbefinden – Eine Einführung. In: Schumacher J, Klaiberg A, Brähler E, editors. Diagnostische Verfahren zu Lebensqualität und Wohlbefinden. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2003. p. 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Fuhrer MJ. Subjectifying quality of life as a medical rehabilitation outcome. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22:481–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/096382800413961.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Stuck AE, Walthert JM, Nikolaus T, Büla CJ, Hohmann C, Beck JC. Risk factors for functional status decline in community-living elderly people: a systematic literature review. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:445–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00370-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Gill TM, Allore HG, Hardy SE, Guo Z. The dynamic nature of mobility disability in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54:248–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.00586.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Gambin G, Molzahn A, Fuhrmann AC, Morais EP, Paskulin LMG. Quality of life of older adults in rural southern Brazil. Rural Remote Health. 2015;3300. https://doi.org/10.22605/RRH3300.

  57. Gobbens RJJ, van Assen MALM. Associations of environmental factors with quality of life in older adults. Gerontologist. 2018;58:101–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnx051.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. van der Vorst A, Zijlstra GAR, de Witte N, Duppen D, Stuck AE, Kempen GIJM, et al. Limitations in activities of daily living in community-dwelling people aged 75 and over: a systematic literature review of risk and protective factors. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0165127. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165127.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Blanco-Reina E, Valdellós J, Ocaña-Riola R, García-Merino MR, Aguilar-Cano L, Ariza-Zafra G, et al. Factors associated with health-related quality of life in community-dwelling older adults: a multinomial logistic analysis. J Clin Med. 2019;8:1810. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8111810.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Ferrer A, Formiga F, Cunillera O, Megido MJ, Corbella X, Almeda J. Predicting factors of health-related quality of life in octogenarians: a 3-year follow-up longitudinal study. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:2701–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1004-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Sun W, Aodeng S, Tanimoto Y, Watanabe M, Han J, Wang B, et al. Quality of life (QOL) of the community-dwelling elderly and associated factors: a population-based study in urban areas of China. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2015;60:311–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2014.12.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. de Paiva MHP, Pegorari MS, Santos Nascimento J, Da Silva Santos Á. Factors associated with quality of life among the elderly in the community of the southern triangle macro-region, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Cien Saude Colet. 2016;21:3347–56. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-812320152111.14822015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. de Melo Neu Ribeiro DK, Lenardt MH, Michel T, Setoguchi LS, Grden CRB, de Oliveira ES. Contributory factors for the functional independence of oldest old. J School Nursing USP. 2015;49:87–93. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0080-623420150000100012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Wang Q, Liu X, Zhu M, Pang H, Kang L, Zeng P, et al. Factors associated with health-related quality of life in community-dwelling elderly people in China. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2020;20:422–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.13895.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. de Matos Nascimento C, Queiroz Ribeiro A, Minardi Mitre Cotta R, de Assis Acurcio F, Viana Peixoto S, Priore SE, et al. Factors associated with functional ability in Brazilian elderly. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2012;54:89–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2011.08.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Talarska D, Tobis S, Kotkowiak M, Strugała M, Stanisławska J, Wieczorowska-Tobis K. Determinants of quality of life and the need for support for the elderly with good physical and mental functioning. Med Sci Monit. 2018;24:1604–13. https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.907032.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Burman J, Sembiah S, Dasgupta A, Paul B, Pawar N, Roy A. Assessment of poor functional status and its predictors among the elderly in a rural area of West Bengal. J Midlife Health. 2019;10:123–30. https://doi.org/10.4103/jmh.JMH_154_18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Connolly D, Garvey J, McKee G. Factors associated with ADL/IADL disability in community dwelling older adults in the Irish longitudinal study on ageing (TILDA). Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39:809–16. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2016.1161848.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Webb E, Blane D, McMunn A, Netuveli G. Proximal predictors of change in quality of life at older ages. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2011;65:542–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2009.101758.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Langlois JA, Maggi S, Harris T, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Pavan M, et al. Self-report of difficulty in performing functional activities identifies a broad range of disability in old age. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996;44:1421–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1996.tb04065.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Mor V, Murphy J, Masterson-Allen S, Willey C, Razmpour A, Jackson ME, et al. Risk of functional decline among well elders. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:895–904. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(89)90103-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Andersson LB, Marcusson J, Wressle E. Health-related quality of life and activities of daily living in 85-year-olds in Sweden. Health Soc Care Commun. 2014;22:368–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Dunlop DD, Manheim LM, Sohn M-W, Liu X, Chang RW. Incidence of functional limitation in older adults: the impact of gender, race, and chronic conditions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:964–71. https://doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2002.32817.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Borchelt MF, Steinhagen-Thiessen E. Physical performance and sensory functions as determinants of Independence in activities of daily living in the old and the very old. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1992;673:350–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1992.tb27470.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Kunzmann U, Little TD, Smith J. Is age-related stability of subjective Weil-being a paradox? Cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence from the Berlin aging study. Psychol Aging. 2000;15:511–26. https://doi.org/10.1037//0882-7974.15.3.511.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Baltes MM, Horgas AL, Klingenspor B, Freund A, Carstensens M, Laura L. Geschlechterunterschiede in der Berliner Altersstudie. In: Mayer KU, Baltes PB, editors. Die Berliner Altersstudie: Ein Projekt der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1st ed. Berlin: Akademie Verlag; 1996. p. 573–98.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Cramm JM, van Dijk HM, Nieboer AP. The importance of neighborhood social cohesion and social capital for the well being of older adults in the community. Gerontologist. 2013;53:142–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gns052.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Shou J, Du Z, Wang H, Ren L, Liu Y, Zhu S. Quality of life and its contributing factors in an elderly community-dwelling population in Shanghai, China. Psychogeriatrics. 2018;18:89–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyg.12288.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Guerra RO, Alvarado BE, Zunzunegui MV. Life course, gender and ethnic inequalities in functional disability in a Brazilian urban elderly population. Aging (Milano). 2008;20:53–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03324748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. López-Ortega M, Konigsberg M. Health-related quality of life among Jewish older persons in Mexico and its determinants. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18:152. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01401-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Fernández-Ballesteros R, Dolores Zamarrón M, Angel RM. The contribution of socio-demographic and psychosocial factors to life satisfaction. Ageing Soc. 2001;21:25–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X01008078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Ćwirlej-Sozańska A, Wiśniowska-Szurlej A, Wilmowska-Pietruszyńska A, Sozański B. Determinants of ADL and IADL disability in older adults in southeastern Poland. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19:297. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1319-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Avlund K, Lund R, Holstein BE, Due P. Social relations as determinant of onset of disability in aging. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2004;38:85–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2003.08.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. García EL, Banegas JR, Pérez-Regadera AG, Cabrera RH, Rodríguez-Artalejo F. Social network and health-related quality of life in older adults: a population-based study in Spain. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:511–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-5329-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Wei K, Nyunt M-S-Z, Gao Q, Wee S-L, Yap K-B, Ng T-P. Association of Frailty and Malnutrition with Long-term Functional and mortality outcomes among community-dwelling older adults: results from the Singapore longitudinal aging study 1. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1:e180650. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0650.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Zaslavsky O, Woods NF, LaCroix AZ, Cauley JA, Johnson KC, Cochrane BB, et al. Identification of risk factors for mortality and poor-quality-of-life survival in frail older women participating in the Women's Health Initiative observational study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64:831–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.14042.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Kim H, Lee T, Lee S, Kim K, Lee S, Kam S, et al. Factors associated with ADL and IADL dependency among Korean centenarians: reaching the 100-year-old life transition. Int J Aging Hum Dev. 2012;74:243–64. https://doi.org/10.2190/AG.74.3.e.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Pérez-Ros P, Martínez-Arnau FM, Tarazona-Santabalbina FJ. Risk factors and number of falls as determinants of quality of life of community-dwelling older adults. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2019;42:63–72. https://doi.org/10.1519/JPT.0000000000000150.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Fortin M, Lapointe L, Hudon C, Vanasse A, Ntetu AL, Maltais D. Multimorbidity and quality of life in primary care: a systematic review. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2:51. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-2-51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Zhang Q, Zhanq Q, Li N. Analysis of quality of life and its influence factors of elderly persons in urban in Chengdu. J Hygiene Res. 2007;36:584–6.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Taş U, Verhagen AP, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, Hofman A, Odding E, Pols HAP, et al. Incidence and risk factors of disability in the elderly: the Rotterdam study. Prev Med. 2007;44:272–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.11.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Micheli K, Ratsika N, Vozikaki M, Chlouverakis G, Philalithis A. Family ties and functional limitation in the elderly: results from the survey of health ageing and retirement in Europe (SHARE). Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2018;78:23–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2018.05.023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Abdul Mutalip MH, Abdul Rahim FA, Mohamed Haris H, Yoep N, Mahmud AF, Salleh R, et al. Quality of life and its associated factors among older persons in Malaysia. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2020;20(Supplement 2):92–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.13961.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Zuccolo PF, Ávila R, Nakano EY, Litvoc J, Lopes MA, Bottino CMC. Instrumental activities of daily living performance in healthy and cognitively intact seniors from a Brazilian sample and its relation to age and other socio-demographic variables. Int Psychogeriatr. 2012;24:784–93. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104161021100250X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Buchmann N, Norman K, Demuth I, Steinhagen-Thiessen E. Surrogatmarker der Insulinresistenz bei Studienteilnehmern mit metabolischem Syndrom – Daten der Berliner Altersstudie II. Lab Med. 2016;40:111–8. https://doi.org/10.1515/labmed-2015-0075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Lestari SK, Ng N, Kowal P, Santosa A. Diversity in the factors associated with ADL-related disability among older people in six middle-income countries: a cross-country comparison. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:1341. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16081341.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Barberger-Gateau P, Chaslerie A, Dartigues J-F, Commenges D, Gagnon M, Salamon R. Health measures correlates in a French elderly community population: the PAQUID study. J Gerontol. 1992;47:S88–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/47.2.s88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Nuthmann R, Wahl H-W. Methodische Aspekte der Erhebungen der Berliner Altersstudie. In: Mayer KU, Baltes PB, editors. Die Berliner Altersstudie: Ein Projekt der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1st ed. Berlin: Akademie Verlag; 1996. p. 55–83.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Verropoulou G, Tsimbos C. Disability trends among older adults in ten European countries over 2004–2013, using various indicators and survey of health, ageing and retirement in Europe (SHARE) data. Ageing Soc. 2017;37:2152–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X16000842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. van den Berg N, Amelung V, Arnold M, Mergenthal K, Engler F, Götz K. RubiN - Regional ununterbrochen betreut im Netz - Evaluationskonzept; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  101. den Ouden MEM, Schuurmans MJ, Mueller-Schotte S, van der Schouw YT. Identification of high-risk individuals for the development of disability in activities of daily living. A ten-year follow-up study. Exp Gerontol. 2013;48:437–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2013.02.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Zhang Y, Xiong Y, Yu Q, Shen S, Chen L, Lei X. The activity of daily living (ADL) subgroups and health impairment among Chinese elderly: a latent profile analysis. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21:30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-01986-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Gloystein S, Thomé F, Götz K, Warkentin N, Mergenthal K, Engler F, et al. RubiN - continuous care in regional networks: a study protocol for a prospective controlled trial. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21:183. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-021-02106-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Sommer I, Gabriel-Müller A, Kasprick L. Angelina: Identifikation geriatrischer Patienten. 2014. https://www.sana.de/media/Kliniken/leipzig-zwenkau/1-medizin-pflege/institutsambulanz/Angelina-Fragebogen.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2021.

  105. Conrad I, Matschinger H, Kilian R, Riedel-Heller S. WHOQOL-OLD und WHOQOL-BREF: Handbuch für die deutschsprachigen Versionen der WHO-Instrumente zur Erfassung der Lebensqualität im Alter. 1st ed. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Power M, Quinn K, Schmidt S. Development of the WHOQOL-old module. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:2197–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-005-7380-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Lübke N. Begründung und Konzeption des “Hamburger Manuals zum Barthel-Index”. 2004. https://www.dimdi.de/static/.downloads/deutsch/hamburger-manual-nov2004.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2021.

  108. Lübke N, Meinck M, von Renteln-Kruse W. Der Barthel-index in der Geriatrie. Eine Kontextanalyse zum hamburger Einstufungsmanual. [the Barthel index in geriatrics. A context analysis for the Hamburg classification manual]. Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2004;37:316–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-004-0233-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Hartigan I. A comparative review of the Katz ADL and the Barthel index in assessing the activities of daily living of older people. Int J Older People Nursing. 2007;2:204–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-3743.2007.00074.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. van der Vorst A, Op Het Veld LPM, de Witte N, Schols JMGA, Kempen GIJM, Zijlstra GAR. The impact of multidimensional frailty on dependency in activities of daily living and the moderating effects of protective factors. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2018;78:255–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2018.06.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Rajan KB, Hebert LE, Scherr P, Dong X, Wilson RS, Evans DA, et al. Cognitive and physical functions as determinants of delayed age at onset and progression of disability. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2012;67:1419–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/gls098.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. Edwards MM. The reliability and validity of self-report activities of daily living scales. Can J Occup Ther. 1990;57:273–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/000841749005700507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Conrad I, Matschinger H, Kilian R, Riedel-Heller S. WHOQOL - 100, WHOQOL - BREF und WHOQOL - OLD. Interkulturell vergleichbare WHO-Instrumente zur Erfassung der subjektiven Lebensqualität. Klinische Diagnostik und Evaluation. 2009;2:133–44.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Gunzelmann T, Brähler E. Deutschsprachige Version der WHO Instrumente zur Erfassung von Lebensqualität WHOQOL-100 und WHOQOL-BREFM - Rezension. Z Med Psychol. 2002;44–8.

  115. The WHOQOL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. The WHOQOL Group. Psychol Med. 1998;28:551–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291798006667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Winkler I, Matschinger H, Angermeyer MC. Der WHOQOL-OLD - Ein Fragebogen zur interkulturellen Erfassung der Lebensqualität im Alter. [The WHOQOL-OLD]. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2006;56:63–9. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2005-915334.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Power M, Schmidt S. WHOQOL-OLD Manual. 2006. https://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/WHOQOL_OLD_Manual.pdf?ua=1. Accessed 13 June 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Gobbens RJ, Remmen R. The effects of sociodemographic factors on quality of life among people aged 50 years or older are not unequivocal: comparing SF-12, WHOQOL-BREF, and WHOQOL-OLD. Clin Interv Aging. 2019;14:231–9. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S189560.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  119. Gottschalk S, König H-H, Schwenk M, Jansen C-P, Nerz C, Becker C, et al. Mediating factors on the association between fear of falling and health-related quality of life in community-dwelling German older people: a cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20:401. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-01802-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. Netuveli G, Wiggins RD, Hildon Z, Montgomery SM, Blane D. Quality of life at older ages: evidence from the English longitudinal study of aging (wave 1). J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:357–63. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2005.040071.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. Guigoz Y, Vellas B, Garry PJ. Assessing the nutritional status of the elderly: the Mini nutritional assessment as part of the geriatric evaluation. Nutr Rev. 1996;54:S59–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.1996.tb03793.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Kalbe E, Kessler J, Calabrese P, Smith R, Passmore AP, Brand M, et al. DemTect: a new, sensitive cognitive screening test to support the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment and early dementia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2004;19:136–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.1042.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Kalbe E, Brand M, Kessler J, Calabrese P. Der DemTect in der klinischen Anwendung. Zeitschrift für Gerontopsychologie Psych. 2005;18:121–30. https://doi.org/10.1024/1011-6877.18.3.121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Nightingale CJ, Mitchell SN, Butterfield SA. Validation of the timed up and go test for assessing balance variables in adults aged 65 and older. J Aging Phys Act. 2019;27:230–3. https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2018-0049.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “up & go”: a test of basic functional Mobilitv for frail Elderlv persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39:142–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1991.tb01616.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Beauchet O, Fantino B, Allali G, Muir SW, Montero-Odasso M, Annweiler C. Timed up and go test and risk of falls in older adults: a systematic review. J Nutr Health Aging. 2011;15:933–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-011-0062-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Bohannon RW. Reference values for the timed up and go test: a descriptive Meta-analysis. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2006;29:64–8. https://doi.org/10.1519/00139143-200608000-00004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Hernán MA, Hernández-Díaz S, Robins JM. A structural approach to selection Bias. Epidemiology. 2004;15:615–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ede.0000135174.63482.43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Jacobs JM, Maaravi Y, Cohen A, Bursztyn M, Ein-Mor E, Stessman J. Changing profile of health and function from age 70 to 85 years. Gerontology. 2012;58:313–21. https://doi.org/10.1159/000335238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Gobbens RJJ, van Assen MALM. Psychometric properties of the Dutch WHOQOL-OLD. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:103. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0508-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. Bangun BCK, Gondodiputro S, Andayani S. Insomnia and quality of life in the elderly: WHOQOL-BREF and WHOQOL-OLD Indonesian version. J Kesehatan Masyarakat. 2020;16:249–55. https://doi.org/10.15294/kemas.v16i2.22895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Hernández-Galiot A, Goñi I. Quality of life and risk of malnutrition in a home-dwelling population over 75 years old. Nutrition. 2017;35:81–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2016.10.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Maaravi Y, Berry EM, Ginsberg GM, Cohen A, Stessman J. Nutrition and quality of life in the aged: the Jerusalem 70-year olds longitudinal study. Aging (Milano). 2000;12:173–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Lee L-C, Tsai AC. Mini-nutritional-assessment (MNA) without body mass index (BMI) predicts functional disability in elderly Taiwanese. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2012;54:e405–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2011.12.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Artaza-Artabe I, Sáez-López P, Sánchez-Hernández N, Fernández-Gutierrez N, Malafarina V. The relationship between nutrition and frailty: effects of protein intake, nutritional supplementation, vitamin D and exercise on muscle metabolism in the elderly. A systematic review. Maturitas. 2016;93:89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2016.04.009.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Horgas AL, Wilms H-U, Baltes MM. Daily life in very old age: everyday activities as expression of successful living. Gerontologist. 1998;38:556–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/38.5.556.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Baltes PB, Baltes MM. Optimierung durch Selektion und Kompensation. Ein psychologisches Modell erfolgreichen Alterns. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik. 1989;35:85–105. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:14507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Schroll M, Jónsson PV, Mor V, Berg K, Sherwood S. An international study of social engagement among nursing home residents. Age Ageing. 1997;26(Suppl 2):55–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/26.suppl_2.55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Hank K, Stuck S. Volunteer work, informal help, and care among the 50+ in Europe: further evidence for 'linked' productive activities at older ages. Soc Sci Res. 2008;37:1280–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.03.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Luger E, Haider S, Kapan A, Schindler K, Lackinger C, Dorner TE. Assocation between nutritional status and quality of life in (pre)frail community-dwelling older persons. J Frailty Aging. 2016;5:141–8. https://doi.org/10.14283/jfa.2016.88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Schoenborn CA, Heyman KM. Health characteristics of adults aged 55 years and over: United States, 2004–2007. 16th ed. Hyattsville; 2009.

  142. Zielińska-Więczkowska H, Kędziora-Kornatowska K, Ciemnoczołowski W. Evaluation of quality of life (QoL) of students of the University of Third age (U3A) on the basis of socio-demographic factors and health status. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2011;53:e198–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2010.09.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Rantanen T, Eronen J, Kauppinen M, Kokko K, Sanaslahti S, Kajan N, et al. Life-space mobility and active aging as factors underlying quality of life among older people before and during COVID-19 lockdown in Finland-a longitudinal study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2021;76:e60–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glaa274.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Bühner M, Ziegler M. Statistik für Psychologen und Sozialwissenschaftler. 1st ed. München: Pearson; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  145. Moritz DJ, Kasl SV, Berkman LF. Cognitive functioning and the incidence of limitations in activities of daily living in an elderly community sample. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;141:41–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117344.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Seeman TE, Bruce ML, McAvay GJ. Social network characteristics and onset of ADL disability: MacArthur studies of successful aging. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 1996;51:S191–200. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/51b.4.s191.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Costa-Font J. Housing assets and the socio-economic determinants of health and disability in old age. Health Place. 2008;14:478–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2007.09.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Sauvaget C, Yamada M, Fujiwara S, Sasaki H, Mimori Y. Dementia as a predictor of functional disability: a four-year follow-up study. Gerontology. 2002;48:226–33. https://doi.org/10.1159/000058355.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Sjölund B-M, Wimo A, Engström M, von Strauss E. Incidence of ADL Disability in Older Persons, Physical Activities as a Protective Factor and the Need for Informal and Formal Care--Results from the SNAC-N Project. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0138901. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138901.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  150. Camargos MCS, Machado CJ, do Nascimento Rodrigues R. Disability life expectancy for the elderly, city of Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2000: Gender and educational differences. J Biosoc Sci. 2007;39:455–63. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932006001428.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Wray LA, Blaum CS. Explaining the role of sex on disability: a population-based study. Gerontologist. 2001;41:499–510. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/41.4.499.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Smith J, Baltes MM. The role of gender in very old age: profiles of functioning and everyday life patterns. Psychol Aging. 1998;13:676–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.13.4.676.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. Lamb VL. Gender differences in correlates of disablement among the elderly in Egypt. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45:127–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00326-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Al Snih S, Markides KS, Ottenbacher KJ, Raji MA. Hand grip strength and incident ADL disability in elderly Mexican Americans over a seven-year period. Aging (Milano). 2004;16:481–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03327406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  155. Tajvar M, Arab M, Montazeri A. Determinants of health-related quality of life in elderly in Tehran, Iran. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:323. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-323.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  156. Koehler M, Kliegel M, Wiese B, Bickel H, Kaduszkiewicz H, van den Bussche H, et al. Malperformance in verbal fluency and delayed recall as cognitive risk factors for impairment in instrumental activities of daily living. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2011;31:81–8. https://doi.org/10.1159/000323315.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  157. Conrad I, Matschinger H, Riedel-Heller S, von Gottberg C, Kilian R. The psychometric properties of the German version of the WHOQOL-OLD in the German population aged 60 and older. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:105. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0105-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  158. World Medical Association. WMA Deklaration von Helsinki - Ethische Grundsaetze für die medizinische Forschung am Menschen. 2013. https://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/pdf-Ordner/International/Deklaration_von_Helsinki_2013_20190905.pdf. Accessed 27 July 2021.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Heiko Krause, medical documentalist, Institute for Community Medicine, Section Epidemiology of Health Care and Community Health, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Innovation Fund of the G-BA (the Federal Joint Committee).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

SL and NvdB contributed to the development of the concept and the design of the study. TL was responsible for data management. SB conducted the data analysis. SB, SG and NvdB were concerned with the interpretation of the statistical results. SB and SG conceived the manuscript. SB wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. SB, SG, TL, SL and NvdB critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Beltz.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The project was conducted in accordance with ethical standards and regulations defined by The Declaration of Helsinki [158].

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University Medicine Greifswald (ethic approval BB188/18). All participants had to provide their written informed consent before they could participate in the study. The original declaration remains in the examination centre, participants received a copy. Study participants could withdraw their consent any time without negative consequences for them.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Bivariate Analysis of ADL.

Additional file 2.

Bivariate Analysis of IADL.

Additional file 3.

Multivariate Analysis – Effect Likelihood Ratio Tests (ADL, IADL, WHOQOL-BREF, WHOQOL-OLD).

Additional file 4.

Bivariate Analysis of WHOQOL-BREF, WHOQOL-OLD.

Additional file 5.

One-way Analysis of Age by Sex.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beltz, S., Gloystein, S., Litschko, T. et al. Multivariate analysis of independent determinants of ADL/IADL and quality of life in the elderly. BMC Geriatr 22, 894 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-022-03621-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-022-03621-3

Keywords

  • Elderly
  • Disability
  • ADL
  • IADL
  • Quality of life
  • WHOQOL-BREF
  • WHOQOL-OLD
  • Physical health
  • Social participation
  • Multivariate analysis