Suppr超能文献

面对面和非面对面社会隔离与全因和特定原因死亡率的关联:广州生物银行队列研究 13 年随访。

Associations of face-to-face and non-face-to-face social isolation with all-cause and cause-specific mortality: 13-year follow-up of the Guangzhou Biobank Cohort study.

机构信息

School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University (North Campus), No. 74, 2nd Zhongshan Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Guangzhou Twelfth People's Hospital, Guangzhou, China.

出版信息

BMC Med. 2022 May 2;20(1):178. doi: 10.1186/s12916-022-02368-3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Although social isolation has been associated with a higher mortality risk, little is known about the potential different impacts of face-to-face and non-face-to-face isolation on mortality. We examined the prospective associations of four types of social isolation, including face-to-face isolation with co-inhabitants and non-co-inhabitants, non-face-to-face isolation, and club/organization isolation, with all-cause and cause-specific mortality separately.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included 30,430 adults in Guangzhou Biobank Cohort Study (GBCS), who were recruited during 2003-2008 and followed up till Dec 2019.

RESULTS

During an average of 13.2 years of follow-up, 4933 deaths occurred during 396,466 person-years. Participants who lived alone had higher risks of all-cause (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) 1.24; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.49) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) (1.61; 1.20-2.03) mortality than those who had ≥ 3 co-habitant contact after adjustment for thirteen potential confounders. Compared with those who had ≥ 1 time/month non-co-inhabitant contact, those without such contact had higher risks of all-cause (1.60; 1.20-2.00) and CVD (1.91; 1.20-2.62) mortality. The corresponding AHR (95% CI) in participants without telephone/mail contact were 1.27 (1.14-1.42) for all-cause, 1.30 (1.08-1.56) for CVD, and 1.37 (1.12-1.67) for other-cause mortality. However, no association of club/organization contact with the above mortality and no association of all four types of isolation with cancer mortality were found.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort study, face-to-face and non-face-to-face isolation were both positively associated with all-cause, CVD-, and other-cause (but not cancer) mortality. Our finding suggests a need to promote non-face-to-face contact among middle-aged and older adults.

摘要

背景

虽然社会孤立与更高的死亡率相关,但对于面对面和非面对面隔离对死亡率的潜在不同影响知之甚少。我们分别检查了四种社会隔离类型(包括与共同居住者和非共同居住者的面对面隔离、非面对面隔离以及俱乐部/组织隔离)与全因和特定原因死亡率的前瞻性关联。

方法

这项前瞻性队列研究纳入了广州生物银行队列研究(GBCS)中的 30430 名成年人,他们在 2003 年至 2008 年期间招募,并随访至 2019 年 12 月。

结果

在平均 13.2 年的随访期间,396466 人年中有 4933 人死亡。与有≥3 位共同居住者接触的参与者相比,独居者的全因(调整后的危险比(AHR)1.24;95%置信区间(CI)1.04-1.49)和心血管疾病(CVD)(1.61;1.20-2.03)死亡率更高,调整了 13 个潜在混杂因素后。与每月至少有 1 次非共同居住者接触的参与者相比,没有此类接触的参与者的全因(1.60;1.20-2.00)和 CVD(1.91;1.20-2.62)死亡率更高。没有电话/邮件接触的参与者的全因(AHR)(95%CI)为 1.27(1.14-1.42),心血管疾病(1.30)(1.08-1.56)和其他原因(1.37)(1.12-1.67)死亡率。然而,俱乐部/组织接触与上述死亡率之间没有关联,也没有发现四种隔离类型与癌症死亡率之间存在关联。

结论

在这项队列研究中,面对面和非面对面隔离都与全因、心血管疾病和其他原因(但不是癌症)死亡率呈正相关。我们的发现表明,需要促进中年和老年人的非面对面接触。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fc1d/9063180/c9ce752e2c08/12916_2022_2368_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验