ArticleBMC geriatrics2022
Psychosocial aspects and support networks associated with disability in two longevous populations in Brazil: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prevalence and correlates of loneliness and social isolation in the oldest old: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2025Pooled it
- Loneliness and Functional Decline in Aging: A Systematic Review.Research in gerontological nursingPooled it
- Factors associated with low social support and participation among Brazilian older adults with disabilities: a cross-sectional study based on the 2019 national health survey.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Regional differences regarding the occurrence of falls and associated factors in two populations of Brazilian longevous people.BMC geriatrics · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAmong the oldest old, aged 80 years and over, the prevalence of disability is higher than in other age groups and can be considered a predictor of mortality.
objectiveTo evaluate how psychosocial aspects and support networks influence the disability of these oldest-old individuals, performing a comparison between two longevous populations, one living in one of the poorest regions of Brazil, in the backlands of Paraíba, and another living in one of the largest urban centres in Latin America.
methodA cross-sectional study in which 417 oldest-old persons aged 80 years and older were interviewed, with data collected through the "Health, Welfare and Ageing" survey conducted in two Brazilian cities. Disability was assessed by reporting the need for assistance in Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADLs). Bivariate and multiple analyses were performed using R statistical software.
resultsFood insufficiency in the first years of life had negative repercussions on the disability of oldest old people living in the northeast. On the other hand, in this region, older people have a higher rate of support and live longer with their peers, which may contribute to reducing feelings of loneliness, depressive symptoms, and worse self-perception of health. In the Southeast, financial constraints, subjective poverty, and unmet needs may favour the development of functional limitations between long-lived people.
conclusionOur findings indicate that regional differences in Brazil may influence the disability of older people aged 80 and older. In northeast Brazil, having no partner may contribute to disability for ADLs and IADLs; while, in the longevous population of São Paulo, having a worse self-rated health may contribute to disability for IADLs.
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.