IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/127642.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Differences in the risk of frailty based on care receipt, unmet care needs and socio-economic inequalities: a longitudinal analysis of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing

Author

Listed:
  • Sinclair, David R.
  • Maharani, Asri
  • Clegg, Andrew
  • Hanratty, Barbara
  • Tampubolon, Gindo
  • Todd, Chris
  • Wittenberg, Raphael
  • O'Neill, Terence W.
  • Matthews, Fiona E.

Abstract

Background The older population is increasingly reliant on social care, especially those who are frail. However, an estimated 1.5 million people over 65 in England have unmet care needs. The relationship between receiving care, or receiving insufficient care, and changes in frailty status remains unclear. Objectives To investigate the associations between care receipt (paid or unpaid), unmet care needs, frailty status, and mortality. Design We used multistate models to estimate the risk of increasing or decreasing levels of frailty, using English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) data. Covariates included age, gender, wealth, area deprivation, education, and marital status. Care status was assessed through received care and self-reported unmet care needs, while frailty status was determined using a frailty index. Participants 15,003 individuals aged 50+, using data collected over 18 years (2002–2019). Results Individuals who receive care are more susceptible to frailty and are less likely to recover from frailty to a less frail state. The hazard ratio of males receiving care transitioning from prefrailty to frailty was 2.1 [95 % CI: 1.7–2.6] and for females 1.8 [1.5–2.0]. Wealth is an equally influential predictor of changes in frailty status: individuals in the lowest wealth quintile who do not receive care are as likely to become frail as those in the highest wealth quintile who do receive care. As individuals receiving care (including unpaid care) are likely to be in poorer health than those who do not receive care, this highlights stark inequalities in the risk of frailty between the richest and poorest individuals. Unmet care needs were associated with transitioning from prefrailty to frailty for males (hazard ratio: 1.7 [1.2–2.4]) but not for females. Conclusions Individuals starting to receive care (paid or unpaid) and people in the poorest wealth quintile are target groups for interventions aimed at delaying the onset of frailty.

Suggested Citation

  • Sinclair, David R. & Maharani, Asri & Clegg, Andrew & Hanratty, Barbara & Tampubolon, Gindo & Todd, Chris & Wittenberg, Raphael & O'Neill, Terence W. & Matthews, Fiona E., 2025. "Differences in the risk of frailty based on care receipt, unmet care needs and socio-economic inequalities: a longitudinal analysis of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 127642, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:127642
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/127642/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ELSA; healthy ageing; multistate model; prefrail; unmet need for care;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • J14 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of the Elderly; Economics of the Handicapped; Non-Labor Market Discrimination
    • J18 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Public Policy
    • C41 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Duration Analysis; Optimal Timing Strategies

    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:ehl:lserod:127642. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.