Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28821408›Full record

ArticleLancet (London, England)2017

Is late-life dependency increasing or not? A comparison of the Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies (CFAS).

Andrew Kingston, Pia Wohland, Raphael Wittenberg, Louise Robinson, Carol Brayne, Fiona E Matthews, Carol Jagger, Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies collaboration

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Lancet (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 82 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
20.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

82 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 187 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.

Andrew KingstonInstitute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK; Newcastle University Institute for Ageing, Faculty of Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK.
Pia WohlandHull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK.
Raphael WittenbergPersonal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Louise RobinsonInstitute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK; Newcastle University Institute for Ageing, Faculty of Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK.
Carol BrayneDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Fiona E MatthewsInstitute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK; Newcastle University Institute for Ageing, Faculty of Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK; MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Carol JaggerInstitute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK; Newcastle University Institute for Ageing, Faculty of Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK. Electronic address: carol.jagger@newcastle.ac.uk.
Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies collaboration
Newcastle University · GBLondon School of Economics and Political Science · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBMRC Biostatistics Unit · GBUniversity of Hull · GBHull York Medical School · GBNewcastle Hospitals - Campus for Ageing and Vitality · GBNIHR Clinical Research Network · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-RP-011-043Medical Research Council G0601022Medical Research Council G9901400Medical Research Council MC_U105292687Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/12
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle is known about how the proportions of dependency states have changed between generational cohorts of older people. We aimed to estimate years lived in different dependency states at age 65 years in 1991 and 2011, and new projections of future demand for care.

methodsIn this population-based study, we compared two Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies (CFAS I and CFAS II) of older people (aged ≥65 years) who were permanently registered with a general practice in three defined geographical areas (Cambridgeshire, Newcastle, and Nottingham; UK). These studies were done two decades apart (1991 and 2011). General practices provided lists of individuals to be contacted and were asked to exclude those who had died or might die over the next month. Baseline interviews were done in the community and care homes. Participants were stratified by age, and interviews occurred only after written informed consent was obtained. Information collected included basic sociodemographics, cognitive status, urinary incontinence, and self-reported ability to do activities of daily living. CFAS I was assigned as the 1991 cohort and CFAS II as the 2011 cohort, and both studies provided prevalence estimates of dependency in four states: high dependency (24-h care), medium dependency (daily care), low dependency (less than daily), and independent. Years in each dependency state were calculated by Sullivan's method. To project future demands for social care, the proportions in each dependency state (by age group and sex) were applied to the 2014 UK [corrected] population projections.

findingsBetween 1991 and 2011, there were significant increases in years lived from age 65 years with low dependency (1·7 years [95% CI 1·0-2·4] for men and 2·4 years [1·8-3·1] for women) and increases with high dependency (0·9 years [0·2-1·7] for men and 1·3 years [0·5-2·1] for women). The majority of men's extra years of life were spent independent (36·3%) or with low dependency (36·3%) whereas for women the majority were spent with low dependency (58·0%), and only 4·8% were independent. There were substantial reductions in the proportions with medium and high dependency who lived in care homes, although, if these dependency and care home proportions remain constant in the future, further population ageing will require an extra 71 215 care home places by 2025.

interpretationOn average older men now spend 2·4 years and women 3·0 years with substantial care needs, and most will live in the community. These findings have considerable implications for families of older people who provide the majority of unpaid care, but the findings also provide valuable new information for governments and care providers planning the resources and funding required for the care of their future ageing populations.

fundingMedical Research Council (G9901400) and (G06010220), with support from the National Institute for Health Research Comprehensive Local research networks in West Anglia and Trent, UK, and Neurodegenerative Disease Research Network in Newcastle, UK.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingCognitionDependency, PsychologicalSocial SupportAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsAgingCohort StudiesFemaleHealth StatusHumansMaleSocioeconomic FactorsTime FactorsUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID28821408
PMCPMC5640505
OpenAlexW2750028530

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.