Table 1

Definition and distribution of health behavioural model (HBM) covariates
HBM variables Operational definitions Mean (SD, Range) Residential transition groups (N, Mean/Percentage)
LSOAII N=3085 CCC N=2589 CIC N=69 CCI N=283 CII N=144
Predisposing Factors
Age Years of age 76.40 (5.60, 69–97) 75.86 (N=2589) 77.88 (N=69) 78.9 (N=283) 80.48 (N=144)
Education Years of education 11.04 (3.48, 0–18) 11.11 (N=2550) 11.35 (N=68) 10.77 (N=280) 10.17 (N=140)
Gender Female N = 2164 (70.1%) N = 1785 (68.9%) N = 52 (75.4%) N = 209 (73.9%) N = 118 (81.9%)
Male N = 921 (29.9%) N = 804 (31.1%) N = 17 (24.6%) N = 74 (26.1%) N = 26 (18.1%)
Racial White N = 2670 (87.1%) N = 2226 (86.0%) N = 63 (91.3%) N = 251 (88.7%) N = 130 (90.3%)
Black N = 328 (10.7%) N = 284 (11.0%) N = 6 (8.7%) N = 26 (9.2%) N = 12 (8.3%)
Indian (American) N = 13 (0.4%) N = 12 (0.5%) N = 1 (0.4%)
Chinese N = 9 (0.3%) N = 7 (0.3%) N = 2 (0.7%)
Filipino N = 10 (0.3%) N = 9 (0.3%) N = 1 (0.4%)
Japanese N = 6 (0.2%) N = 6 (0.2%)
Asian Indian N = 3 (0.1%) N = 3 (0.1%)
Guamanian N = 1 (0.03%) N = 1 (0.0%)
Other Race N = 19 (0.6%) N = 17 (0.7%) N = 1 (0.4%) N = 1 (0.7%)
Multiple Race N = 5 (0.2%) N = 5 (0.2%)
Marital status Married N = 1478 (47.9%) N = 1300 (50.20%) N = 28 (40.50%) N = 103 (36.40%) N = 47 (32.70%)
Self-rated health Poor N =284 (9.2%) N = 228 (8.8%) N = 9 (13.0%) N = 25 (8.8%) N = 22 (15.3%)
Fair N =726 (23.6%) N = 600 (23.2%) N = 16 (23.2%) N = 71 (23.2%) N = 39 (23.2%)
Good N =1131 (36.8%) N = 948 (36.6%) N = 30 (43.5%) N = 104 (36.7%) N = 49 (34.0%)
Excellent N =294 (9.6%) N = 256 (9.9%) N = 2 (2.9%) N = 31 (11.0%) N = 5 (3.5%)
Enabling Factors
Household size No. living in the same household 1.82 (0.96, 1–11) 1.85 (N=2589) 1.90 (N=69) 1.70 (N=283) 1.65 (N=144)
Family income Higher scores indicate higher income (0 = less than $1,000; 26 = $50,000+) 16.11 (6.74, 0–26) 16.33 (N=2085) 16.94 (N=48) 14.93 (N=228) 13.85 (N=103)
Need Factors
Nagi’s Functional limitations No. of functional activities (e.g., climbing stairs, bending, lifting) unable to performa (0–10) 3.37 (2.40, 0–10) 3.22 (N=2589) 4.29 (N=69) 3.70 (N=283) 4.85 (N=144)
IADL disabilities No. of IADLs unable to performc (0–8) 1.06 (1.72, 0–8) 0.92 (N=2587) 1.70 (N=69) 1.46 (N=283) 2.64 (N=144)
Hospital patient (T2) Been a hospital patient overnight between T1 and T2 N=1832 (59.4%) N = 1636 (63.2%) N = 7 (10.1%) N = 155 (54.8%) N = 34 (23.6%)
Hospital patient (T3) Been a hospital patient overnight between T2 and T3 N=1696 (55.0%) N = 1567 (60.5%) N = 33 (47.8%) N = 47 (16.6%) N = 49 (34.0%)
Difficulty with elders’ house (0-4) N of Difficulty with elders’ house 1.41 (N=2589) 2.10 (N=69) 7.28 (N=283) 12.52 (N=144)
Unmet need in ADL (0-7) N of ADLs needs more help 0.07 (N=2584) 0.03 (N=68) 0.18 (N=282) 0.34 (N=144)
Unmet need in IADL (0-8) Number of IADL needs more help 0.13 (N=2584) 0.09 (N=68) 0.19 (N=282) 0.35 (N=144)

Note. All data from The Second Longitudinal Study of Aging—The Second Supplement on Aging: 1994 (Version 2, No. 1, September 1998) [Data file]. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Available from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/otheract/aging/lsoa2.htm webcite.

a From “An epidemiology of disability among adults in the United States,” by Nagi, 1976, Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 54 (4), pp. 439–476. bFrom “Index of ADL ,” by Katz and Akpom, 1976,Medical Care, pp. 116–118. cFrom “Assessment of older people; self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living,” by Lawton and Brody, 1969, The Gerontologist,9, pp. 179–186.

Chen and Berkowitz

Chen and Berkowitz BMC Geriatrics 2012 12:44   doi:10.1186/1471-2318-12-44

Open Data