Bann David, Chen Haiying, Bonell Chris, Glynn Nancy W, Fielding Roger A, Manini Todd, King Abby C, Pahor Marco, Mihalko Shannon L, Gill Thomas M
Centre for Longitudinal Studies, UCL Institute of Education, London, UK.
Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Biostatistical Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016 Sep;70(9):930-3. doi: 10.1136/jech-2016-207321. Epub 2016 Apr 8.
Evidence is lacking on whether health-benefiting community-based interventions differ in their effectiveness according to socioeconomic characteristics. We evaluated whether the benefit of a structured physical activity intervention on reducing mobility disability in older adults differs by education or income.
The Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIFE) study was a multicentre, randomised trial that compared a structured physical activity programme with a health education programme on the incidence of mobility disability among at-risk community-living older adults (aged 70-89 years; average follow-up of 2.6 years). Education (≤ high school (0-12 years), college (13-17 years) or postgraduate) and annual household income were self-reported (<$24 999, $25 000 to $49 999 and ≥$50 000). The risk of disability (objectively defined as loss of ability to walk 400 m) was compared between the 2 treatment groups using Cox regression, separately by socioeconomic group. Socioeconomic group×intervention interaction terms were tested.
The effect of reducing the incidence of mobility disability was larger for those with postgraduate education (0.72, 0.51 to 1.03; N=411) compared with lower education (high school or less (0.93, 0.70 to 1.24; N=536). However, the education group×intervention interaction term was not statistically significant (p=0.54). Findings were in the same direction yet less pronounced when household income was used as the socioeconomic indicator.
In the largest and longest running trial of physical activity amongst at-risk older adults, intervention effect sizes were largest among those with higher education or income, yet tests of statistical interactions were non-significant, likely due to inadequate power.
NCT01072500.
关于有益健康的社区干预措施的有效性是否因社会经济特征而异,目前缺乏相关证据。我们评估了结构化体育活动干预对降低老年人行动能力残疾的益处是否因教育程度或收入而有所不同。
生活方式干预与老年人独立性(LIFE)研究是一项多中心随机试验,比较了结构化体育活动计划与健康教育计划对有行动能力残疾风险的社区居住老年人(年龄70 - 89岁;平均随访2.6年)行动能力残疾发生率的影响。教育程度(≤高中(0 - 12年)、大学(13 - 17年)或研究生)和家庭年收入通过自我报告获取(<$24999、$25000至$49999以及≥$50000)。使用Cox回归分别按社会经济群体比较两个治疗组之间的残疾风险(客观定义为无法行走400米的能力丧失)。对社会经济群体×干预交互项进行了检验。
与低教育程度者(高中及以下(0.93,0.70至1.24;N = 536)相比,研究生教育程度者(0.72,0.51至1.03;N = 411)降低行动能力残疾发生率的效果更大。然而,教育程度组×干预交互项无统计学意义(p = 0.54)。当使用家庭收入作为社会经济指标时,结果方向相同但不太明显。
在针对有风险的老年人进行的规模最大、持续时间最长的体育活动试验中,干预效果在高教育程度或高收入者中最大,但统计交互检验无显著性,可能是由于检验效能不足。
NCT01072500。