ArticleRevista de saude publica2020
Robust older adults in primary care: factors associated with successful aging.
Article in Revista de saude publica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Person-centred care models for institutionalised older adults requiring palliative care: an integrative review.BMC geriatrics · 2026Pooled it
- Robustness in Older Adults: A Concept Analysis Using Rodgers' Evolutionary Approach.Nursing & health sciences · 2026Review
- Structured Clinical Tools for Periodic Health Assessment of Older Adults in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.Health science reports · 2025Review
- Healthy Aging and its Determinants Among Community-dwelling Older Persons in East Coast, Malaysia: A Multidimensional Assessment.Oman medical journal · 2023Article
- Nursing protocol in chronic kidney disease prevention in older adults in primary care.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate the prevalence of robustness among older adults assisted in primary health care and identify factors in successful aging.
methodsThis is a cross-sectional study conducted with older adults in Northern Minas Gerais, Brazil. Two questionnaires were used for data collection: the Brazilian Older Americans Resources and Services Multidimensional Function Assessment Questionnaire (BOMFAQ) and the Clinical-Functional Vulnerability Index IVCF-20). The adjusted prevalence ratios were obtained by robust Poisson regression. Statistical analysis was performed for older adults in general (60 to 107 years) and stratified by age: from 60 to 79 years and 80 years or more.
resultsA total of 1,750 older adults aged 60 to 107 years participated; between them, 48.7% were robust. Older adults aged 60 to 79 years (n = 1,421) and 80 years or more (n = 329) had a prevalence of robustness of 55.4% and 19.3%, respectively. Some factors associated with successful aging were: positive self-perception of health, dancing habits, walking habits, absence of cognitive impairment, absence of depressive symptoms and polypathology, as well as daily life independence. After adjustment by age, the absence of polypathology and independence for activities of daily living stand out for robustness between 60 and 79 years; in those aged 80 years and over, independence for activities of daily living and dance practice presented greater strength of association.
conclusionThe prevalence of robust older adults in primary care is considered satisfactory for the older population in general but decreases with age and is associated with the absence of diseases and disabilities. These results denote the need to redesign the health care system, focusing on promoting and preventing clinical-functional vulnerability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.