Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35864451›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2022

Exploring the difference between men and women in physical functioning: How do sociodemographic, lifestyle- and health-related determinants contribute?

Lena Dirkje Sialino, H Susan J Picavet, Hanneke A H Wijnhoven, Anne Loyen, W M Monique Verschuren, Marjolein Visser, Laura S Schaap, Sandra H van Oostrom

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Are Women More Vulnerable to Flooding Than Men in an Aging Japanese Society?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lena Dirkje SialinoDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. l.d.sialino@vu.nl.
H Susan J PicavetCentre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Hanneke A H WijnhovenDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Anne LoyenCentre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
W M Monique VerschurenCentre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Marjolein VisserDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Laura S SchaapDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sandra H van OostromCentre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo explore whether differences between men and women in the sensitivity to (strength of the association) and/or in the exposure to determinants (prevalence) contribute to the difference in physical functioning, with women reporting more limitations.

methodsData of the Doetinchem Cohort Study was used (n = 5856, initial ages 26-70 years), with follow-up measurements every 5 years (up to 20). Physical functioning (subscale SF-36, range:0-100), sex (men or women) and a number of socio-demographic, lifestyle- and health-related determinants were assessed. Mixed-model multivariable analysis was used to investigate differences between men and women in sensitivity (interaction term with sex) and in exposure (change of the sex difference when adjusting) to determinants of physical functioning.

resultsThe physical functioning score among women was 6.55 (95%CI:5.48,7.61) points lower than among men. In general, men and women had similar determinants, but pain was more strongly associated with physical functioning (higher sensitivity), and also more prevalent among women (higher exposure). The higher exposure to low educational level and not having a paid job also contributed to the lower physical functioning score among women. In contrast, current smoking, mental health problems and a low educational level were more strongly associated with a lower physical functioning score among men and lower physical activity and higher BMI were more prevalent among men.

conclusionsAlthough important for physical functioning among both men and women, our findings provide no indications for reducing the difference in physical functioning by promoting a healthy lifestyle but stress the importance of differences in pain, work and education.

Indexed as

Life StylePainAdultAgedCohort StudiesEducational StatusFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceHealth-related factorsLife-courseLifestyle factorsPhysical agingSocio-demographic factors

Identifiers

PMID35864451
PMCPMC9306105
OpenAlexW4286488515

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.