Functional status in rural and urban adults: The Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging. Issue 4 (22nd April 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: John, Philip St.; Menec, Verena; Tate, Robert; Newall, Nancy; O'Connell, Megan; Cloutier, Denise
• Is Part Of: Journal of rural health. Volume 38:Issue 4(2022)
• Page Start: 679
• Page End: 688
• Publication Date: 2021-04-22
• Subjects: aging -- CLSA -- functional status -- OARS -- rural‐urban disparities; Rural health -- Periodicals; Rural health -- United States -- Periodicals; Medicine, Rural -- Periodicals; Medicine, Rural -- United States -- Periodicals; 362.104257
• DOI: 10.1111/jrh.12578
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0890-765X

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: To document the prevalence of functional impairment in middle‐aged and older adults from rural regions and to determine urban‐rural differences. Methods: We have conducted a secondary analysis using data from an ongoing population‐based cohort study, the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA). We used a cross‐sectional sample from the baseline wave of the "tracking cohort." The definition of rurality was the same as the one used in the CLSA sampling frame and based on the 2006 census. This definition includes rural areas, defined as all territory lying outside of population centers, and population centers, which collectively cover all of Canada. We grouped these into "Urban, " "Peri‐urban, " "Mixed" (areas with both rural and urban areas), and "Rural, " and compared functional status across these groups. Functional status was measured using the Older Americans Resource Survey (OARS) and categorized as not impaired versus having any functional impairment. Logistic regression models were constructed for the outcome of functional status and adjusted for covariates. Findings: No differences were found in functional status between those living in rural, mixed, peri‐urban, and urban areas in unadjusted analyses and in analyses adjusting for sociodemographic and health‐related factors. There were no rural‐urban differences in any of the individual items on the OARS scales. Conclusions: We found no rural‐urban differences in functional status.