IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/1992826841-845_0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Functional limitations and disability among elders in the Framingham study

Author

Listed:
  • Kelly-Hayes, M.
  • Jette, A.M.
  • Wolf, P.A.
  • D'Agostino, R.B.
  • Odell, P.M.

Abstract

Background. The measurement of physical disability as an indication of the impact of disease is commonly seen in research. However, these measures often do not clearly differentiate between functional limitations and daily performance of an activity. Methods. We measured the differences between self-reported disability and observed functional limitations in six activities of daily living tasks among community-dwelling elders. The value of functional limitations vs disability measures in determining risk factors for disablement was ascertained. Results. Systematic differences were found among the 1453 participants. At least 89% of the time when a difference was identified, the subjects ranked disability greater than the functional limitations observed. For those who were cognitively impaired, discrepancies occurred up to 11% of the time. In determining risk factors for disablement, we found that neurological impairments were associated with both functional limitations and disability, while sociocultural factors were associated with disability only. Conclusions. Our findings suggest that physical functional limitations and disability in the elderly are two distinct concepts and that the measure of choice should be determined by research objectives and the type of population being studied.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelly-Hayes, M. & Jette, A.M. & Wolf, P.A. & D'Agostino, R.B. & Odell, P.M., 1992. "Functional limitations and disability among elders in the Framingham study," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 82(6), pages 841-845.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1992:82:6:841-845_0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1992:82:6:841-845_0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.