Physical and cognitive functioning of people older than 90 years: a comparison of two Danish cohorts born 10 years apart - PubMed (original) (raw)

Physical and cognitive functioning of people older than 90 years: a comparison of two Danish cohorts born 10 years apart

Kaare Christensen et al. Lancet. 2013.

Abstract

Background: A rapidly increasing proportion of people in high-income countries are surviving into their tenth decade. Concern is widespread that the basis for this development is the survival of frail and disabled elderly people into very old age. To investigate this issue, we compared the cognitive and physical functioning of two cohorts of Danish nonagenarians, born 10 years apart.

Methods: People in the first cohort were born in 1905 and assessed at age 93 years (n=2262); those in the second cohort were born in 1915 and assessed at age 95 years (n=1584). All cohort members were eligible irrespective of type of residence. Both cohorts were assessed by surveys that used the same design and assessment instrument, and had almost identical response rates (63%). Cognitive functioning was assessed by mini-mental state examination and a composite of five cognitive tests that are sensitive to age-related changes. Physical functioning was assessed by an activities of daily living score and by physical performance tests (grip strength, chair stand, and gait speed).

Findings: The chance of surviving from birth to age 93 years was 28% higher in the 1915 cohort than in the 1905 cohort (6·50% vs 5·06%), and the chance of reaching 95 years was 32% higher in 1915 cohort (3·93% vs 2·98%). The 1915 cohort scored significantly better on the mini-mental state examination than did the 1905 cohort (22·8 [SD 5·6] vs 21·4 [6·0]; p<0·0001), with a substantially higher proportion of participants obtaining maximum scores (28-30 points; 277 [23%] vs 235 [13%]; p<0·0001). Similarly, the cognitive composite score was significantly better in the 1915 than in the 1905 cohort (0·49 [SD 3·6] vs 0·01 [SD 3·6]; p=0·0003). The cohorts did not differ consistently in the physical performance tests, but the 1915 cohort had significantly better activities of daily living scores than did the 1905 cohort (2·0 [SD 0·8] vs 1·8 [0·7]; p<0·0001).

Interpretation: Despite being 2 years older at assessment, the 1915 cohort scored significantly better than the 1905 cohort on both the cognitive tests and the activities of daily living score, which suggests that more people are living to older ages with better overall functioning.

Funding: Danish National Research Foundation; US National Institutes of Health-National Institute on Aging; Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation; VELUX Foundation.

Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest

We declare that we have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure

Figure. Study profile for 1905 and 1915 cohorts

*For the non-participants from the 1905 cohort, mean age was 93·2 years and 265 (20%) were men. †For the non-participants from the 1915 cohort, mean age was 95·3 years and 172 (19%) were men.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. He W, Muenchrath MN. 90+ in the United States: 2006–2008 (American Community Survey Reports, ACS-17) Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 2011.
    1. Christensen K, Davidsen M, Juel K, Mortensen L, Rau R, Vaupel JW. International differences in mortality at older ages—dimensions and sources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2010. The divergent life-expectancy trends in Denmark and Sweden—and some potential explanations In: Crimmins EM, Preston SH, Cohen B, eds; pp. 385–407. - PubMed
    1. [accessed March 25, 2013];Human Mortality Database. http://www.mortality.org/
    1. Christensen K, Doblhammer G, Rau R, Vaupel JW. Ageing populations: the challenges ahead. Lancet. 2009;374:1196–208. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baltes PB, Smith J. New frontiers in the future of aging: from successful aging of the young old to the dilemmas of the fourth age. Gerontology. 2003;49:123–35. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources