Search

Objectives: To extend existing research on the US health disadvantage relative to Europe by studying the relationships of disability with age from midlife to old age in the US and four European regions (England/Northern and Western Europe/Southern Europe/Eastern Europe) including their wealth-related differences, using a flexible statistical approach to model the age-functions. Methods: We used data from three studies on aging, with nationally representative samples of adults aged 50 to 85 from 15 countries (N = 48225): the US-American Health and Retirement Study (HRS), the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) and the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). Outcomes were mobility limitations and limitations in instrumental activities of daily living. We applied fractional polynomials of age to determine best fitting functional forms for age on disability in each region, while controlling for socio-demographic characteristics and important risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, obesity, smoking, physical inactivity). Results: Findings showed high levels of disability in the US with small age-related changes between 50 and 85. Levels of disability were generally lower in Eastern Europe, followed by England and Southern Europe and lowest in Northern and Western Europe. In these latter countries age-related increases of disability, though, were steeper than in the US, especially in Eastern and Southern Europe. For all countries and at all ages, disability levels were higher among adults with low wealth compared to those with high wealth, with largest wealth-related differences among those in early old age in the USA. Conclusions: This paper illustrates considerable variations of disability and its relationship with age. It supports the hypothesis that less developed social policies and more pronounced socioeconomic inequalities are related to higher levels of disability and an earlier onset of disability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine cross-sectional and prospective associations between perceived discrimination in daily life (based on a range of attributes), sexual orientation discrimination, and health and wellbeing in middle-aged and older lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people. Methods: Data were from 304 LGB men and women aged 41–85 years participating in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Perceived discrimination in daily life was reported in 2010/11. Participants could attribute their discrimination experience to characteristics including age, sex, race, physical disability, and sexual orientation. Self-rated health, limiting long-standing illness, depressive symptoms, quality of life, life satisfaction and loneliness were assessed in 2010/11 and 2016/17. Analyses adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, partnership status and socioeconomic position. Results: Perceived discrimination in daily life was reported by 144 (47.4%) participants. Cross-sectionally, perceived discrimination in daily life was associated with increased odds of depressive symptoms (OR = 2.30, 95% CI 1.02 to 5.21), loneliness (OR = 3.37, 95% CI 1.60 to 7.10) and lower quality of life (B = -3.31, 95% CI -5.49 to -1.12). Prospectively, perceived discrimination in daily life was associated with increased odds of loneliness (OR = 3.12, 95% CI 1.08 to 8.99) and lower quality of life (B = -2.08, 95% CI -3.85 to -0.31) and life satisfaction (B = -1.92, 95% CI -3.44 to -0.39) over six-year follow-up. Effect sizes were consistently larger for participants who attributed experiences of discrimination to their sexual orientation compared with those who attributed experiences of discrimination to other reasons (e.g. age, sex, race). Conclusion: These results provide cross-sectional and prospective evidence of associations between perceived discrimination in daily life and health and wellbeing outcomes in middle-aged and older LGB adults in England. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To explore pregnant women’s preferences for birth setting in England. Design: Labelled discrete choice experiment (DCE). Setting: Online survey. Sample: Pregnant women recruited through social media and an online panel. Methods: We developed a DCE to assess women’s preferences for four hypothetical birth settings based on seven attributes: reputation, continuity of care, distance from home, time to see a doctor, partner able to stay overnight, chance of straightforward birth and safety for baby. We used a mixed logit model, with setting modelled as an alternative-specific constant, and conducted a scenario analysis to evaluate the impact of changes in attribute levels on uptake of birth settings. Main outcome measures: Women’s preferences for birth setting. Results: 257 pregnant women completed the DCE. All birth setting attributes, except ‘time to see doctor’, were significant in women’s choice (p<0.05). There was significant heterogeneity in preferences for some attributes. Changes to levels for ‘safety for the baby’ and ‘partner able to stay overnight’ were associated with larger changes from baseline uptake of birth setting. If the preferences identified were translated into the real-world context up to a third of those who reported planning birth in an obstetric unit might choose a midwifery unit assuming universal access to all settings, and knowledge of the differences between settings. Conclusions: We found that ‘safety for the baby’, ‘chance of a straightforward birth’ and ‘can the woman’s partner stay overnight following birth’ were particularly important in women’s preferences for hypothetical birth setting. If all birth settings were available to women and they were aware of the differences between them, it is likely that more low risk women who currently plan birth in OUs might choose a midwifery unit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]