ObjectivesTo explore the association between the number of teeth and frailty among older Chinese adults using a nationally representative sample.DesignCross-sectional analysis was carried out using the 2014 wave data from the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey, which used a targeted random-sampling design.SettingThis research was conducted in communities from nearly half of the counties and cities in 22 out of 31 provinces throughout China.ParticipantsOf the 6934 interviewees aged ≥65 years, the final analysis included 3635 older adults who had completed the 2014 wave survey on the variables included in the study.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOutcome variables included frailty, measured by the Frailty Index, and number of teeth. Covariates included demographic characteristics (ie, age, sex, co-residence, marital status, years of education and financial support), body mass index (BMI) and health behaviours (ie, smoking, drinking and exercise). A univariate logistic regression was used to test the factors associated with frailty. A multiple logistic regression model was used, using the frailty score as the dependent variable and the number of teeth together with significant covariates as the independent variables.ResultsThe prevalence of frailty was 27.68%. The mean number of teeth present was 9.23 (SD=10.03). The multiple logistic regression showed that older adults’ demographic variables, health behaviours, BMI, tooth number and chewing pain were significantly associated with frailty. After adjusting for the covariates, older adults with fewer teeth had significantly higher odds of frailty than those with 20 or more teeth (no teeth: OR=2.07, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.80; 1 to 10 teeth: OR=1.77, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.38), except for older adults with 11 to 20 teeth (OR=1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82).ConclusionsThe presence of fewer teeth is significantly associated with frailty status among older Chinese adults. Future studies are needed to explain the specific mechanisms underlying how oral health status is associated with frailty.
Background: Understanding the preferences for end-of-life (EOL) care is imperative in providing quality care to patients with life-threatening illness. However, it is difficult for patients, families, and health-care providers to initiate EOL conversations in China. An easy-to-use tool that could help health-care providers initiate EOL discussions is the Heart to Heart Card Game (HHCG), originally designed for Chinese Americans. Objective: To evaluate the EOL preferences among Chinese patients with cancer using the HHCG. Methods: We conducted a descriptive study to assess EOL preferences using HHCG among patients at the oncology chemoradiotherapy department of a Chinese tertiary hospital. Results: We recruited 58 patients in total of which 40 (69%) patients completed HHCG. The most frequently selected card was “I want my family to get along,” followed by “I don’t want to be a burden to my family,” and “I want to maintain my dignity.” Among the 3 cards selected, social needs were rated as the most important (36.7%), followed by spiritual needs (35.8%), physical needs (20.0%), and financial needs (7.5%). The evaluation of the HHCG revealed that more than 70% of the participants highly valued HHCG. Conclusion: The HHCG can be used as a communication tool to encourage EOL discussions between cancer patients and health-care providers in China. Moreover, Chinese patients with cancer attach significant importance to their family and maintaining dignity at the EOL.
Nurse administrators and health policy-makers should establish a healthy work environment for intensive care units nurses, especially for those from surgical intensive care units.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.