Next Article in Journal
Changes in Sleep Quality, Sleep Duration, and Sickness Absence: A Longitudinal Study with Repeated Measures
Previous Article in Journal
The Effects of Flaxseed Consumption on Glycemic Control in Native American Postmenopausal Women with Hyperglycemia and Hyperlipidemia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Healthcare
Volume 12
Issue 14
10.3390/healthcare12141394
healthcare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Exploring the Role of Social Factors in Cognitive Frailty among South Korean Older Adults

by
Young Ko
1 and
Kyungwon Choi
2,*
1
College of Nursing, Gachon University, Incheon 21936, Gyeonggi, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Nursing, Korea National University of Transportation, Jeungpyeong-gun 27909, Chungbuk, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2024, 12(14), 1394; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12141394
Submission received: 7 May 2024 / Revised: 26 June 2024 / Accepted: 10 July 2024 / Published: 11 July 2024
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cognitive frailty, which is characterized by the co-occurrence of physical frailty and cognitive impairment, poses significant risks to the well-being and independence of elderly individuals. Previous research has established that demographic, health-related, and social factors contribute to both physical frailty and cognitive decline. However, the role of social factors in influencing cognitive frailty remains unclear. This study aims to identify the relationship between social factors and cognitive frailty among Korean older adults living in the community. We performed secondary analyses of data from the 2020 Survey on Older Adults. After entering demographic factors and health-related factors into the logistic model as covariates, this study explored the association between cognitive frailty and social factors, including living arrangements, social support, the frequency of engagement in social activities per week, and satisfaction with friends and community. Among participants, approximately 2.9% had cognitive frailty, 3.2% had only physical frailty, and 21.9% had only cognitive decline. Lower levels of satisfaction with friends and the community and infrequent participation in social activities were strongly correlated with cognitive frailty. These findings emphasize the necessity of public health programs that encourage older individuals’ social involvement. A supportive social environment can be fostered through initiatives that promote community events, group activities, and volunteerism. Public health policies should prioritize the development and maintenance of social activity centers that offer various programs to prevent progression to cognitive frailty in older adults.

1. Introduction

South Korea is currently experiencing a rapid transition into an aging society. These changes are being caused by a significant decline in birth rates and increases in average life expectancy due to healthcare advances, economic pressures such as high costs of living and child-rearing, evolving social norms, and individualistic lifestyles [1]. The prevalence of aging-related diseases and frailty has continued to grow with an increase in the elderly population. Frailty, characterized by a decline in the physiological reserve capacity of various organs among older adults, manifests as diminished resilience to stressors, thereby rendering individuals more susceptible to negative health outcomes such as disability, illness, hospitalization, and mortality [2,3]. Western countries, particularly in Europe and North America, tend to have more individualistic cultures. Elderly care is often institutionalized, with greater reliance on nursing homes and assisted living facilities. In contrast, Korea’s collectivist culture emphasizes family-based care. The increase in women’s labor force participation and nuclear families is making it more difficult for families to care for the elderly [4]. These changes require greater public health attention to the prevention and management of frailty among the elderly as well as the establishment of a community support system for elderly care.
Frailty is a reversible state before reaching irreversible adverse health outcomes such as disease or death [5]. Therefore, frailty is an important concept in that appropriate interventions can maintain and improve function to prevent disease or death. While frailty encompasses multidimensional aspects, including physical, cognitive, emotional, and social functions [6], previous research has predominantly concentrated on physical frailty. In general, the most commonly used definition of frailty is Fried’s phenotype, which delineates the condition through the presence of three or more of the following five criteria: unintentional weight loss, exhaustion, weakness, slow gait speed, and low levels of physical activity [2]. A meta-analysis study carried out to assess the prevalence of frailty in the Chinese community has reported that the prevalence of physical frailty varied from 5.9% to 17.4%, with a pooled prevalence estimated at 10% [7]. In a multicenter longitudinal study conducted in 2016–2017, physically frail Korean older adults accounted for 7.8% of community-dwelling residents in urban and rural areas nationwide in 10 study centers across different regions, and this figure is expected to steadily increase [8]. Therefore, it is important to periodically monitor the incidence of frailty, including physical frailty, and reduce frailty-related risk factors to mitigate the prevalence of frailty among the older population. Cognitive impairment also increases with age. The prevalence of cognitive impairment has varied from about 5.1% to 41%, with a median of 19.0% [9]. These cognitive impairments elevate the susceptibility to physical and functional impairment, dementia, frailty, and death [10,11,12,13]. Previous studies have found that cognitive impairment and physical fragility are associated [14] and that there is an increased risk of physical frailty in the presence of cognitively impaired people [11,12,15]. This implies a complex interplay between cognitive and physical frailty domains within the aging-related degenerative trajectory [16]. There is a strong link between being physically weak and losing your mental abilities. This link is based on similar mechanisms, such as changes in vascular and hormonal function, a lack of certain nutrients and vitamins (especially vitamin D and B12), inflammation, and insulin resistance [17].
Cognitive frailty, an emerging concept in the field of geriatric medicine, has garnered increasing attention from scholars and healthcare professionals in recent years [18]. This condition is characterized by the coexistence of physical frailty and cognitive decline [18]. Individuals affected by cognitive frailty experience a spectrum of health challenges, ranging from cognitive impairment to functional limitations, ultimately leading to a decreased quality of life and elevated mortality rates compared to their healthier counterparts [19,20]. Given these implications, it is important to identify both the prevalence and characteristics of frailty, with a specific focus on cognitive frailty.
Demographic factors that have been associated with physical frailty [21] and cognitive impairment [22] include female gender, advanced age, low economic status, low educational attainment, and single or unpartnered status. Health characteristics that have been associated with physical frailty [21] and cognitive impairment [22] include dependency on daily activities, decline in vision and hearing function, the presence of chronic diseases, depressive symptoms, and poor self-rated health. Furthermore, studies have found that social factors influence the physical frailty [21,23,24,25] and cognitive function [26] of older adults. However, previous studies examining the relationship between social factors and frailty produced inconsistent findings. Instrumental support from within and outside family members was associated with a significantly lower risk of physical frailty [25]. Similarly, social isolation—measured through marital status, frequency of contact with offspring, and engagement in various social activities—was also associated with the progression of physical frailty [23]. High levels of social activities significantly influenced frailty positively, regardless of cognitive function level [24]. However, some studies have found that too much social support may negatively affect the mental health of older adults [27,28]. Older people may complain of more depression as they receive more types of social support and have less personal control [27]. Similarly, a scoping review highlighted that older adults need a balanced approach to care. Excessive help with activities of daily living, such as bathing and dressing, can lead to decreased independence and lower self-esteem, ultimately worsening their condition [28]. As a result of a systematic literature review, the relationship between functional social support and higher cognitive function in middle- and older-aged adults was not statistically significant [29].
While most studies have not investigated the association between social factors and cognitive frailty, some studies have found that social factors influence cognitive frailty [30,31]. Social support was negatively associated with cognitive frailty [30]. Similarly, traveling or outing experiences less than once a year were associated with cognitive frailty [31].
Based on these findings, we aimed to identify the prevalence of cognitive frailty in older adults residing in the community and identify the factors influencing cognitive frailty, focusing on social factors. We hypothesized that social factors would influence cognitive frailty and that the influence of social factors on the health of older adults would vary depending on the characteristics of social factors.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Participants

This study was a secondary analysis that used data from the 2020 National Survey of Older Koreans (NSOK) to identify factors associated with the cognitive frailty of older adults living in communities. The Department of Health and Social Research and the Ministry of Health Welfare have jointly conducted the NOSK every three years since 2008, using a nationally representative sample of older persons aged 65 and above. The Institutional Review Board of the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs (KIHSA IRB Number: 2020-36) officially approved this survey [32]. In 2020, they surveyed 10,299 elderly people living in 17 districts and 934 survey areas. The study used data from 9827 older adults without a dementia diagnosis and without any missing information to assess cognitive frailty.

2.2. Measure

2.2.1. Cognitive Frailty

Physical frailty and cognitive impairment coexist alongside cognitive frailty [18]. We measured physical frailty using the FRAIL instrument [33], which defines frailty as the absence of problems in fewer than three domains: fatigue, resistance, ambulation, illness, and weight loss [34]. A FRAIL score of 3 or more denotes physical frailty, while scores of 1–2 indicate prefrailty, and a score of 0 signifies robust. We evaluated cognitive function using the Korean version of the Mini-Mental State Examination for Dementia Screening (MMSE-DS) [35]. The score range of MMSE-DS is from 0 to 30. Normal and cognitive impairment are classified according to the norm score based on age, sex, and education level. We identified cognitive impairment as scores that fell 1.5 standard deviations below those expected for the age and education levels of older Korean adults [35]. In this study, mean MMSE-DS was 3 points and ranged from 1 to 5 points. This standardized test has demonstrated reliability and validity for screening cognitive impairment, including dementia. We classified the participants into the following four groups based on the combination of physical weakness and cognitive decline: robust, cognitive impairment only, physical frailty only, and cognitive frailty.

2.2.2. Social Factors

Social factors comprised both structural and functional variables. Structural variables included living arrangements, social support measured by the number of close friends, and relatives, and the frequency of engagement in social activities per week. Functional variables included satisfaction with friends and the community. We categorized living arrangements into two groups: living alone and living with others.
The frequency of social activity participation per week was calculated by summing the frequency of seven social activities per week: club, social club, political and social group, volunteer activity, religious activity, senior citizen’s center, and welfare center for seniors. The frequency of participation in social activities per week was classified into four categories: less than once per week, once per week, 2–3 times per week, and four or more times per week. The assessment of social support involved asking the following question: “How many close relatives, friends, neighbors, and acquaintances, including brothers and sisters, do you have with whom you can confide in your mind?” Satisfaction with friends and the community was assessed using “To what extent are you satisfied with relationships with friends and the community?” Response options included (1) very satisfied; (2) satisfied; (3) average; (4) not satisfied; and (5) not satisfied at all. We grouped responses of “very satisfied” and “satisfied” as “satisfied”, while we grouped “average”, “dissatisfied”, and “very dissatisfied” as “dissatisfied”.

2.2.3. Covariates

Demographic factors, including sex, age, educational attainment, and equivalent household annual income, were considered covariates in this study. We categorized age groups as 65–74 years, 75–84 years, and 85 years older. House income was measured by total income. We then divided the total annual household income by the square root of the total number of household members and classified it according to all quartile distributions (the lowest 25%, 25–50%, 51–75%, and the highest 25%).
Health-related factors included vision, hearing, depression, a number of chronic diseases, and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) dependency. Visual and hearing sensory functions were evaluated through inquiries of discomfort experienced in daily life regardless of the use of aids such as glasses and hearing aids. The questions were about discomfort while watching television, reading the newspaper, and talking on the phone or with someone next to them. Responses indicating “not uncomfortable” were classified as “good”, whereas those indicating varying degrees of discomfort, namely “uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable”, were categorized as “not good”.
IADL was measured using the Korean version of IADL adapted by Won et al. [36], based on the tool developed by Lawton et al. [37]. The scale consists of 10 items (scored as 1 point for complete independence, 2 points for partial help, and 3 points for complete help), with higher scores indicating greater dependence. We classified participants as ‘IADL-dependent’ if they indicated any need for help on any of the 10 items, and as ‘IADL-independent’ if they were completely independent.
Depressive symptoms were assessed using a 15-item scale adapted from the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) developed by Sheikh and Yesavage [38], which was translated into Korean and validated by Kee [39]. Each item was rated as “yes” or “no,” with total scores ranging from 0 to 15. Participants with scores of 10 or higher were considered to have depressive symptoms. The scale demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84).
We assessed the self-reported number of diagnosed chronic diseases (including hypertension, stroke, hyperlipidemia, angina, myocardial infarction, diabetes, thyroid disease, arthritis, neuropeptide, osteoporosis, back pain, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, asthma, tuberculosis, cataracts, glaucoma, chronic otitis media, cancer, gastroduodenal ulceration, hepatitis, liver cirrhosis, chronic kidney disease, benign prostatic hyperplasia, urinary incontinence, sexually transmitted diseases, anemia, skin disease, depression, fracture, insomnia, Parkinson’s disease, etc.).

2.3. Data Collection

We used publicly available data that did not contain identification information. Data were obtained from the 2020 National Survey of Older Koreans via the website (https://data.kihasa.re.kr/kihasa/main.html (accessed on 27 July 2021)) after our application was reviewed and approved. The original survey was conducted between 14 September and 20 November 2020. A trained investigator collected data using a tablet-PC-assisted personal interview method. The investigator visited the participants’ homes and directly collected data through interviews [32]. Approval for the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the researchers’ affiliated university (IRB No. 1044396-202404-HR-065-01).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

SPSS 26.0 was used for all statistical analyses. The characteristics of demographic factors, health-related factors, family and social factors, and cognitive frailty as well as the correlation between these influencing factors and cognitive function were examined using χ2 tests, t-tests, a one-way ANOVA with Scheffe tests, and descriptive statistics. Three multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the factors influencing cognitive impairment, physical frailty, and cognitive frailty. For these analyses, the model was run with four demographic factors (sex, age, educational level, and annual household income), three health-related characteristics (IADL dependency, depression, and number of chronic diseases), and family and social factors in association with the status of cognitive frailty. Odds ratios (ORs) indicated the likelihood of membership in the “cognitive impairment” group (relative to the “robust” group), the “physical frailty” group (relative to the “robust” group), and the “cognitive frailty” group (relative to the “robust” group).

3. Results

3.1. Cognitive Frailty

Among the older adult participants, the prevalence rates were as follows: cognitive frailty at 2.9%, physical frailty at 3.2%, and cognitive decline at 21.9%. About 56.9% of older adults were women, and 5.9% were aged 85 or older. Furthermore, 41.9% had achieved an elementary school or lower level of education. Moreover, 34.7% reported experiencing vision discomfort, and 24.6% reported experiencing hearing discomfort. Participants had an average of 1.83 chronic diseases, 32.1% had depressive symptoms, and 10.8% had IADL dependence. Both demographic and health-related factors were found to be associated with cognitive frailty.
The prevalence of cognitive frailty was higher among women than men and was particularly elevated among individuals with low income and lower levels of education. Moreover, participants with depressive symptoms exhibited a higher prevalence rate of cognitive frailty (7.8%) compared with older adults without depressive symptoms (0.6%). The correlation between physical frailty and cognitive frailty increased with the number of chronic diseases. Additionally, there was a significant correlation between IADL dependence and cognitive frailty (Table 1).
Approximately 20% were living alone, and 80.0% were living with others. About 19.7% engaged in social activities less than once a week, and they reported having an average of 3.05 close acquaintances. Moreover, 59.0% of older adults expressed satisfaction with their friends and community.
Cognitive frailty was associated with all social factors. The number of close people was significantly lower in the physically frail and cognitively frail groups compared to the robust and cognitively impaired groups (p < 0.001). Moreover, Table 2 shows a strong correlation between cognitive frailty and lower levels of satisfaction with friends and the community, as well as reduced engagement in social activities.

3.2. Factors Influencing Cognitive Frailty

When comparing the cognitive impairment group with the robust group, the likelihood of cognitive impairment increased in those aged 74–84 and over 85 compared to those aged 65–74, those with higher levels of education, or those with a low-income level. Furthermore, participants with hearing discomfort, depressive symptoms, or dependence on IADL were more likely to experience cognitive impairment.
Regarding social factors, the odds of cognitive impairment were 1.40 (1.23–1.61) times higher in older adults who engage in social activities less than once compared to those who engage in social activities four times a week. In cases of low satisfaction with friends and community, the likelihood of cognitive impairment was 1.43 (1.29–1.58) times higher than in cases of satisfaction.
As a result of comparing the physically frail group with the robust group, the likelihood of belonging to the physically frail group increased as the number of years of education decreased, and the income level was low, particularly for those aged 74–84 and over 85 compared to those aged 65–74. Participants who experienced visual or hearing discomfort were more likely to suffer from physical frailty. As the number of concomitant chronic diseases increased, the likelihood of physical frailty also increased. Moreover, the likelihood of physical frailty increased in individuals who exhibited depressive symptoms or had IADL dependence.
As a result of comparing the cognitively frail group with the robust group, the likelihood of cognitive frailty increased in individuals aged 74–84 and 85 or older compared to those aged 65–74, and those with a low income level (Q1). The greater the number of chronic diseases, the higher the likelihood of cognitive frailty. The likelihood of cognitive frailty increased in cases of hearing discomfort, depressive symptoms, or IADL dependence. Regarding social factors, the likelihood of cognitive frailty increased 1.91 (1.33–2.75) times in individuals who engaged in social activities less than once compared to those who engaged in social activities four times a week. Older adults with low satisfaction with their friends and community were more likely to experience cognitive frailty compared to those with high satisfaction (Table 3).

4. Discussion

This study aimed to identify factors influencing the prevalence of cognitive frailty among Korean older adults in the community, with a focus on social factors. Our findings revealed a significant association between the frequency of social activities and subjective perceptions of friends and community, which were highly related to cognitive frailty. We discuss these points and suggest their implications.
First, it was found that the prevalence of cognitive frailty was 2.9%, while the prevalence of physical frailty was 6.1% among Korean older adults in the community. A systematic literature review of 24 studies revealed a 7% pooled prevalence of cognitive frailty among community-dwelling older adults based on descriptive studies [40]. This result was higher than the prevalence of cognitive frailty confirmed in this study. It is important to note that the prevalence of cognitive frailty may vary due to differences in diagnostic criteria and studied populations. Moreover, the variation in the physical frailty tool could account for the lower prevalence rate in this study [41]. The prevalence of frailty in Korean seniors aged 70 years or older varied from 2.5% to 12.4% depending on the scales of physical frailty [41]. As Korea rapidly transitions into an aging society, we anticipate an increase in the prevalence of cognitive frailty. Of particular interest was the finding that 47.5% of older adults with physical frailty exhibited cognitive decline, indicating cognitive frailty. This result supports the need to provide specific interventions for cognitively frail participants who have both cognitive decline and physical frailty.
Secondly, this study’s results significantly linked dissatisfaction with friends and the community to cognitive decline and cognitive frailty. These results are similar to those of previous studies showing that neighborhood cohesion has a beneficial effect on physical frailty [42] and cognitive function [43]. The elderly’s dissatisfaction with friends and the community may be a reflection of their neighborhood environment. A related study reported that neighborhood factors were independently associated with frailty in older adults [44]. Research shows that feeling more secure and having a stronger sense of social cohesion and neighborhood belonging seem to protect against frailty [42]. There is a notable gap in research regarding the conceptualization and measurement of neighborhoods and communities, as well as efforts to confirm the relationship between these entities and frailty [44]. Therefore, to identify factors of dissatisfaction with friends and the community among elderly people with cognitive decline and their caregivers, in-depth research is necessary.
Third, the results of this study indicated that older adults who engaged in social activities less than once had a higher likelihood of experiencing cognitive impairment and cognitive frailty compared to individuals who participated in social activities four or more times. This was consistent with previous research findings that the lack of social activity in the elderly is a risk factor for cognitive frailty [31], physical frailty [45], and cognitive impairment [46]. Unlike a prospective study revealing a dose–response relationship between social participation and functional decline [47], this study did not show a similar dose–response relationship between social activity and cognitive frailty. In this study, social support, defined as the number of close people and living arrangements as structural aspects of social factors, was not associated with cognitive decline, physical frailty, or cognitive frailty. Previous studies do not report consistent results regarding the relationship between social support and the health of older adults [24,48]. Furthermore, there is a lack of consistency in existing research concerning the frequency and types of social activities, as well as the multidimensional nature of social support. Given the importance of social factors in preventing cognitive frailty, it would be beneficial to conduct research that offers detailed insights into the social factors associated with cognitive frailty.
Finally, we confirmed the number of concomitant chronic diseases, depression, and dependence on instrumental daily activities as health-related factors influencing cognitive frailty. There was a correlation between the severity of physical health problems and the degree of frailty. Therefore, maintaining physical function and managing chronic diseases and mental health are important issues in frailty management for the elderly. This result reaffirmed the importance of a comprehensive approach to health issues for the elderly.
The high prevalence of cognitive frailty among participants with depressive symptoms in this study underscores the strong link between mental health and cognitive function. Research consistently identifies depression as a risk factor and a consequence of cognitive decline in older adults [49,50]. This bidirectional relationship suggests that depressive symptoms may accelerate cognitive deterioration through mechanisms such as neuroinflammation, reduced hippocampal neurogenesis, and decreased engagement in cognitively stimulating activities. Conversely, cognitive frailty can exacerbate feelings of hopelessness and diminish the quality of life. The interplay between these factors highlights the need for integrated approaches to addressing cognitive frailty. Interventions should not only aim at cognitive enhancement but also at improving mental health and emotional well-being.
It is important to help older adults with cognitive impairments remain safely at home for as long as possible [51]. According to the aging in place theory, older adults want to age in place, live with family and friends, and remain independent and autonomous; they also expect to have more opportunities to participate in social community activities, which can help them form strong senses of security and belonging to the community [52]. A study found that social isolation and loneliness, along with difficulties in daily living activities and moving around independently, are common challenges in “aging in place” among elderly individuals with cognitive impairment [51], and these findings have significant implications. The results of this study, which confirmed that participation in social activities and subjective perceptions of community influence cognitive impairment and cognitive frailty, also support the need for social intervention among older adults. Social activities have benefits for improving cognitive function [53]. The findings from Wang et al.’s [30] research revealed a connection between low social support and increased rates of cognitive frailty following a 1-year follow-up, with psychological distress partially mediating this relationship. In other words, managing mental health through social activities can help improve cognitive frailty. Social activities promote conversation, communication, and interaction between people, which can stimulate brain activity and maintain or improve cognitive abilities. This is supported by a study result reporting that deceased social interaction and instrumental social support predicted a decline in cognitive performance among older adults [48]. These findings provide insights into the mechanisms underlying the positive effects of social activities on cognitive frailty in our study. With the majority of people residing in metropolitan regions, South Korea has a substantial urban-rural split. Because of the decline of Confucianism and the transition from traditional extended families to nuclear families, older adults in urban areas frequently live apart from their offspring. This makes it difficult for them to receive direct help from family members. An absence of social interaction may be due to the fact that many elderly adults in cities live alone or in couples. Older adults living alone tend to experience faster cognitive decline than those living with others, including family members, due to a monotonous life pattern and a lack of environmental stimulation [54,55]. However, elderly residents of rural areas often have stronger ties to local norms and relationships but may have limited access to healthcare, social services, and technological advancements [56]. Therefore, health care providers need to understand regional characteristics, family resources, and social resources to improve the social activities of older adults with cognitive impairment as well as older adults with cognitive impairment. First of all, it is necessary to increase the number of centers where elderly people with cognitive decline can engage in social activities near their residential areas. It is also important to increase volunteer opportunities that help cognitively ill elderly people participate in social activities. In addition, there is a need to continue to promote the importance of social activities for the elderly with cognitive decline and cognitive frailty.
This study has several limitations. First, it only examines cross-sectional relationships between family and social factors, as well as cognitive frailty. Second, participants in the 2020 NSOK were community-dwelling older adults outside of institutional settings. As a result, the study findings may not be generalizable to institutionalized or hospitalized older adults, who may have a higher prevalence of physical frailty as well as higher rates of cognitive impairment. Despite these limitations, this study used a nationally representative sample weighted by census estimates, which increases the generalizability of these findings.

5. Conclusions

This study found that low economic status and health status are related not only to cognitive decline and physical frailty but also to cognitive frailty. Furthermore, vulnerability to social factors, including limited social activity or dissatisfaction with friends and community, is correlated with both cognitive decline and cognitive frailty. Therefore, we need to implement interventions that aim to enhance social engagement and the social environment for community-dwelling older adults suffering from cognitive impairment and frailty. We should actively provide opportunities for social participation and relationship building among older adults.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.K. and K.C.; methodology, Y.K.; software, Y.K.; validation, Y.K. and K.C. formal analysis, Y.K.; investigation, K.C.; data curation, Y.K.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.K. and K.C.; writing—review and editing, Y.K. and K.C.; supervision, Y.K; project administration, Y.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Gachon University (1044396-202404-HR-065-01and 19 April 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

This study is exempt from the consent of research participants for research and publication of papers using publicly available data.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, and further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Yun, J.; Kim, C.Y.; Son, S.H.; Bae, C.W.; Choi, Y.S.; Chung, S.H. Birth rate transition in the Republic of Korea: Trends and prospects. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2022, 37, e304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Fried, L.P.; Tangen, C.M.; Walston, J.; Newman, A.B.; Hirsch, C.; Gottdiener, J.; Seeman, T.; Tracy, R.; Kop, W.J.; Burke, G.; et al. Frailty in older adults: Evidence for a phenotype. J. Gerontol. Ser. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2001, 56, M146–M156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Falk Erhag, H.; Guðnadóttir, G.; Alfredsson, J.; Cederholm, T.; Ekerstad, N.; Religa, D.; Nellgård, B.; Wilhelmson, K. The association between the Clinical Frailty Scale and adverse health outcomes in older adults in acute clinical settings—A systematic review of the literature. Clin. Interv. Aging 2023, 18, 249–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Chee, Y. Elder care in Korea: The future is now. Ageing Int. 2000, 26, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Clegg, A.; Young, J.; Iliffe, S.; Rikkert, M.O.; Rockwood, K. Frailty in elderly people. Lancet 2013, 381, 752–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Wleklik, M.; Uchmanowicz, I.; Jankowska, E.A.; Vitale, C.; Lisiak, M.; Drozd, M.; Pobrotyn, P.; Tkaczyszyn, M.; Lee, C. Multidimensional approach to frailty. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. He, B.; Ma, Y.; Wang, C.; Jiang, M.; Geng, C.; Chang, X.; Ma, B.; Han, L. Prevalence and risk factors for frailty among community-dwelling older people in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Nutr. Health Aging 2019, 23, 442–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Won, C.W.; Lee, S.; Kim, J.; Chon, D.; Kim, S.; Kim, C.O.; Kim, M.K.; Cho, B.; Choi, K.M.; Roh, E.; et al. Korean frailty and aging cohort study (KFACS): Cohort profile. BMJ Open 2020, 10, e035573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pais, R.; Ruano, L.; Carvalho, O.P.; Barros, H. Global cognitive impairment prevalence and incidence in community dwelling older adults—A systematic review. Geriatrics 2020, 5, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Michaud, T.L.; Su, D.; Siahpush, M.; Murman, D.L. The risk of incident mild cognitive impairment and progression to dementia considering mild cognitive impairment subtypes. Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord. Extra 2017, 7, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fabrício, D.M.; Chagas, M.H.N.; Diniz, B.S. Frailty and cognitive decline. Transl. Res. 2020, 221, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Lee, Y.; Kim, J.; Chon, D.; Lee, K.E.; Kim, J.H.; Myeong, S.; Kim, S. The effects of frailty and cognitive impairment on 3-year mortality in older adults. Maturitas 2018, 107, 50–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. An, R.; Liu, G.G. Cognitive impairment and mortality among the oldest-old Chinese. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 2016, 31, 1345–1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ma, L.; Chan, P. Understanding the physiological links between physical frailty and cognitive decline. Aging Dis. 2020, 11, 405–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Downer, B.; Al Snih, S.; Howrey, B.T.; Raji, M.A.; Markides, K.S.; Ottenbacher, K.J. Combined effects of cognitive impairment and pre-frailty on future frailty and death in older Mexican Americans. Aging Ment. Health 2019, 23, 1405–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Robertson, D.A.; Savva, G.M.; Kenny, R.A. Frailty and cognitive impairment—A review of the evidence and causal mechanisms. Ageing Res. Rev. 2013, 12, 840–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Halil, M.; Cemal Kizilarslanoglu, M.; Emin Kuyumcu, M.; Yesil, Y.; Cruz Jentoft, A.J. Cognitive aspects of frailty: Mechanisms behind the link between frailty and cognitive impairment. J. Nutr. Health Aging 2015, 19, 276–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Kelaiditi, E.; Cesari, M.; Canevelli, M.; van Kan, G.A.; Ousset, P.J.; Gillette-Guyonnet, S.; Ritz, P.; Duveau, F.; Soto, M.E.; Provencher, V.; et al. Cognitive frailty: Rational and definition from an (I.A.N.A./I.A.G.G.) international consensus group. J. Nutr. Health Aging 2013, 17, 726–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Feng, L.; Zin Nyunt, M.S.; Gao, Q.; Feng, L.; Yap, K.B.; Ng, T.P. Cognitive frailty and adverse health outcomes: Findings from the Singapore Longitudinal Ageing Studies (SLAS). J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2017, 18, 252–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Bu, Z.; Huang, A.; Xue, M.; Li, Q.; Bai, Y.; Xu, G. Cognitive frailty as a predictor of adverse outcomes among older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Behav. 2021, 11, e01926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Han, S.Y.; Jang, H.Y.; Ko, Y. Factors influencing the stages of frailty among Korean older adults focusing on objective and subjective social isolation. BMC Geriatr. 2022, 22, 488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wu, M.S.; Lan, T.H.; Chen, C.M.; Chiu, H.C.; Lan, T.Y. Socio-demographic and health-related factors associated with cognitive impairment in the elderly in Taiwan. BMC Public Health 2011, 11, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Jarach, C.M.; Tettamanti, M.; Nobili, A.; D’avanzo, B. Social isolation and loneliness as related to progression and reversion of frailty in the Survey of Health Aging Retirement in Europe (SHARE). Age Ageing 2021, 50, 258–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Welstead, M.; Jenkins, N.D.; Russ, T.C.; Luciano, M.; Muniz-Terrera, G. A systematic review of frailty trajectories: Their shape and influencing factors. Gerontologist 2021, 61, e463–e475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Chu, W.M.; Tange, C.; Nishita, Y.; Tomida, M.; Shimokata, H.; Otsuka, R.; Lee, M.C.; Arai, H. Effect of different types of social support on physical frailty development among community-dwelling older adults in Japan: Evidence from a 10-year population-based cohort study. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2023, 108, 104928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kim, D.E.; Yoon, J.Y. The reciprocal casual relationship between social activities and health with reference to the cognitive function level among community-dwelling older adults: A cross-lagged panel analysis. J. Korean Acad. Community Health Nurs. 2017, 28, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ang, S.; Malhotra, R. Association of received social support with depressive symptoms among older males and females in Singapore: Is personal mastery an inconsistent mediator? Soc. Sci. Med. 2016, 153, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Abdi, S.; Spann, A.; Borilovic, J.; de Witte, L.; Hawley, M. Understanding the care and support needs of older people: A scoping review and categorisation using the WHO international classification of functioning, disability and health framework (ICF). BMC Geriatr. 2019, 19, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mogic, L.; Rutter, E.C.; Tyas, S.L.; Maxwell, C.J.; O’Connell, M.E.; Oremus, M. Functional social support and cognitive function in middle- and older-aged adults: A systematic review of cross-sectional and cohort studies. Syst. Rev. 2023, 12, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, Y.; Li, J.; Fu, P.; Jing, Z.; Zhao, D.; Zhou, C. Social support and subsequent cognitive frailty during a 1-year follow-up of older people: The mediating role of psychological distress. BMC Geriatr. 2022, 22, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lee, T.; Chung, J.; Song, K.; Ji, Y. Prevalence and associated factors of cognitive frailty in community-dwelling older adults: Results from the Korean longitudinal study of aging. Int. J. Older People Nurs. 2023, 18, e12576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs. National Survey of Older Koreans 2020; Ministry of Health and Welfare: Sejong, Republic of Korea, 2020; pp. 35–68. [Google Scholar]
  33. van Kan, G.A.; Rolland, Y.M.; Morley, J.E.; Vellas, B. Frailty: Toward a clinical definition. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2008, 9, 71–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Jung, H.W.; Yoo, H.J.; Park, S.Y.; Kim, S.W.; Choi, J.Y.; Yoon, S.J.; Kim, C.H.; Kim, K.I. The Korean version of the FRAIL scale: Clinical feasibility and validity of assessing the frailty status of Korean elderly. Korean J. Intern. Med. 2016, 31, 594–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kim, G.W.; Kim, M.H.; Kim, B.G.; Kim, J.R.; Kim, T.H.; Moon, S.W.; Park, S.H.; Yoo, S.H.; Yoon, H.C.; Lee, D.W.; et al. Standardization of Diagnostic Tools for Dementia; Bundang Seoul National University Hospital: Seongnam, Republic of Korea, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  36. Won, C.W.; Rho, Y.G.; Sunwoo, D.; Lee, E.J. The validity and reliability of Korean Instrumental Activities of Daily Living(K-IADL) scale. Ann. Geriatr. Med. Res. 2002, 6, 273–280. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lawton, M.P.; Brody, E.M. Assessment of older people: Self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 1969, 9, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sheikh, J.I.; Yesavage, J.A. Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS): Recent evidence and development of a short version. Clin. Gerontol. 1986, 5, 165–173. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kee, B.S. A preliminary study for the standardization of geriatric depression scale short form-Korea version. J. Korean Neuropsychiatr. Assoc. 1996, 35, 298–307. [Google Scholar]
  40. Qiu, Y.; Li, G.; Wang, X.; Zheng, L.; Wang, C.; Wang, C.; Chen, L. Prevalence of cognitive frailty among community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2022, 125, 104112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kim, K.J.; Shin, J.; Choi, J.; Won, C.W. Discrepancies in the prevalence of known frailty scales: Korean Frailty and Aging Cohort Study. Ann. Geriatr. Med. Res. 2018, 22, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cramm, J.M.; Nieboer, A.P. Relationships between frailty, neighborhood security, social cohesion and sense of belonging among community-dwelling older people. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 2013, 13, 759–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Choi, J.; Han, S.H.; Ng, Y.T.; Muñoz, E. Neighborhood Cohesion across the life course and effects on cognitive aging. J. Gerontol. Ser. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2023, 78, 1765–1774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fritz, H.; Cutchin, M.P.; Gharib, J.; Haryadi, N.; Patel, M.; Patel, N. Neighborhood characteristics and frailty: A scoping review. Gerontologist 2020, 60, e270–e285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Yen, Y.C.; Yang, M.J.; Shih, C.H.; Lung, F.W. Cognitive impairment and associated risk factors among aged community members. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 2004, 19, 564–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Sun, J.; Kong, X.; Li, H.; Chen, J.; Yao, Q.; Li, H.; Zhou, F.; Hu, H. Does social participation decrease the risk of frailty? Impacts of diversity in frequency and types of social participation on frailty in middle-aged and older populations. BMC Geriatr. 2022, 22, 553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ide, K.; Tsuji, T.; Kanamori, S.; Jeong, S.; Nagamine, Y.; Kondo, K. Social participation and functional decline: A comparative study of rural and urban older people, using Japan gerontological evaluation study longitudinal data. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Jin, Y.; Yu, R.; Si, H.; Bian, Y.; Qiao, X.; Ji, L.; Liu, Q.; Wang, W.; Yu, J.; Li, Y.; et al. Effects of social support on frailty trajectory classes among community-dwelling older adults: The mediating role of depressive symptoms and physical activity. Geriatr. Nurs. 2022, 45, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Guerrero-Berroa, E.; Ravona-Springer, R.; Schmeidler, J.; Heymann, A.; Soleimani, L.; Sano, M.; Leroith, D.; Preiss, R.; Zukran, R.; Silverman, J.M.; et al. Depressive symptoms are associated with cognitive function in the elderly with Type 2 diabetes. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. 2018, 65, 683–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Steenland, K.; Karnes, C.; Seals, R.; Carnevale, C.; Hermida, A.; Levey, A. Late-life depression as a risk factor for mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease in 30 US Alzheimer’s disease centers. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. 2012, 31, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Mayo, C.D.; Kenny, R.; Scarapicchia, V.; Ohlhauser, L.; Syme, R.; Gawryluk, J.R. Aging in Place: Challenges of Older Adults with Self-Reported Cognitive Decline. Can. Geriatr. J. 2021, 24, 138–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gilleard, C.; Hyde, M.; Higgs, P. The impact of age, place, aging in place, and attachment to place on the well-being of the over 50 s in England. Res. Aging 2007, 29, 590–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hu, Y.; Lei, X.; Smith, J.P.; Zhao, Y. Effects of Social Activities on Cognitive Functions: Evidence from CHARLS; RAND Working Paper Series WR-918; RAND Cooperation: Santa Monica, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Håkansson, K.; Rovio, S.; Helkala, E.L.; Vilska, A.R.; Winblad, B.; Soininen, H.; Nissinen, A.; Mohammed, A.H.; Kivipelto, M. Association between mid-life marital status and cognitive function in later life: Population-based cohort study. BMJ 2009, 339, b2462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. van Gelder, B.M.; Tijhuis, M.; Kalmijn, S.; Giampaoli, S.; Nissinen, A.; Kromhout, D. Marital status and living situation during a 5-year period are associated with a subsequent 10-year cognitive decline in older men: The FINE Study. J. Gerontol. Ser. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2006, 61, P213–P219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Choi, J.; Yang, K.; Chu, S.H.; Youm, Y.; Kim, H.C.; Park, Y.R.; Son, Y.J. Social activities and health-related quality of life in rural older adults in South Korea: A 4-Year Longitudinal Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Participants’ characteristics and cognitive frailty (N = 9827).
Table 1. Participants’ characteristics and cognitive frailty (N = 9827).
CharacteristicsCategoryTotal
n (Weighted %)
or M ± SD		Robust a
n (Weighted %)
or M ± SD		Cognitive Impairment Only b
n (Weighted %)
or M ± SD		Physical Frailty Only c
n (Weighted %)
or M ± SD		Cognitive Frailty d
n (Weighted %)
or M ± SD		p §
Sex 9827 (100.0)6945 (71.4)2259 (21.9)324 (3.2)299 (2.9)
Male3940 (100.0)2723 (72.3)961 (23.2)91 (2.2)95 (2.2)<0.001
Female5887 (100.0)4152 (70.7)1298 (21.8)233 (4.0)204 (3.5)
Age (years) 73.41 ± 6.5372.76 ± 6.2773.98 ± 6.4778.14 ± 6.7779.16 ± 7.16<0.001
65–745935 (100.0)4465 (75.7)1289 (21.4)99 (1.6)82 (1.3)<0.001
75–843291 (100.0)2151 (67.1)822 (24.0)170 (4.8)148 (4.0)
≥85601 (100.0)329 (56.9)148 (22.3)55 (8.9)69 (11.9)
Educational attainment (years)(0–24)8.44 ± 4.018.53 ± 4.058.88 ± 3.575.37 ± 4.456.29 ± 3.85<0.001
(b > a > d > c)
Equivalent household annual income
(unit: 1000 won)		Q1 (~813)2459 (100.0)1623 (68.3)590 (22.5)134 (5.3)112 (3.8)<0.001
Q2 (1394)2455 (100.0)1628 (67.3)639 (25.2)85 (3.3)103 (4.2)
Q3 (2435)2452 (100.0)1755 (70.9)576 (23.9)74 (3.2)47 (2.1)
Q4 (2435~)2461 (100.0)1939 (77.9)454 (18.6)31 (1.5)37 (2.0)
VisionGood6594 (100.0)4812 (73.9)1563 (22.9)119 (1.8)100 (1.4)<0.001
Not good3233 (100.0)2133 (66.6)696 (21.7)205 (5.9)199 (5.8)
HearingGood7563 (100.0)5610 (75.2)1693 (21.5)149 (2.0)111 (1.3)<0.001
Not good2264 (100.0)1335 (59.7)566 (25.3)175 (7.0)188 (7.9)
Depressive symptomsNo6796 (100.0)5191 (77.0)1493 (21.4)69 (1.0)43 (0.6)<0.001
Yes3031 (100.0)1754 (59.5)766 (24.7)255 (7.9)256 (7.8)
Number of chronic diseases(0–17)1.83 ± 1.471.72 ± 1.371.84 ± 1.403.00 ± 1.973.22 ± 2.10<0.001
(a, b < c, d)
IADL 10.61 ± 2.6010.26 ± 1.6010.68 ± 2.6613.22 ± 5.3615.35 ± 6.72<0.001
Independent8837 (100.0)6546 (75.0)1996 (21.9)176 (1.9)119 (1.2)<0.001
Dependent990 (100.0)399 (41.8)263 (26.7)148 (14.1)180 (17.5)
Note. IADL = Instrumental Activities of Daily Living. § post hoc test by Scheffe tests (subgroups: a = robust, b = cognitive impairment only, c = physical frailty only, d = cognitive frailty).
Table 2. Social factors of participants and cognitive frailty (N = 9827).
Table 2. Social factors of participants and cognitive frailty (N = 9827).
CharacteristicsCategoryTotal
n (Weighted %)
or M ± SD		Robust a
n (Weighted %)
or M ± SD		Cognitive Impairment Only b
n (Weighted %)
or M ± SD		Physical Frailty Only c
n (Weighted %)
or M ± SD		Cognitive
Frailty d
n (Weighted %)
or M ± SD		p §
Living arrangementLiving alone3085 (100.0)2073 (67.6)728 (23.0)145 (4.9)139 (4.5)<0.001
Living with others6742 (100.0)4872 (72.3)1531 (22.3)179 (2.8)160 (2.6)
Social participation
(days per week)		<12027 (100.0)1281 (63.6)558 (27.1)83 (4.1)105 (5.2)<0.001
11664 (100.0)1177 (71.1)365 (21.0)59 (3.7)63 (4.2)
2–32597 (100.0)1902 (73.1)582 (22.8)72 (2.7)41 (1.4)
≥43539 (100.0)2585 (74.4)754 (20.4)110 (2.9)90 (2.2)
Number of closed persons(0–87)3.05 ± 2.563.13 ± 2.563.00 ± 2.612.50 ± 2.322.32 ± 2.27<0.001
(a, b > c, d)
Satisfaction for friends and communityUnsatisfied 3944 (100.0)2477 (64.0)1063 (25.7)191 (5.1)213 (5.3)<0.001
Satisfied5883 (100.0)4468 (76.5)1196 (20.2)133 (2.0)86 (1.3)
§ post hoc test by Scheffe tests (subgroups: a = robust, b = cognitive impairment only, c = physical frailty only, d = cognitive frailty).
Table 3. Factors influencing cognitive impairment, physical frailty, and cognitive frailty (N = 9827).
Table 3. Factors influencing cognitive impairment, physical frailty, and cognitive frailty (N = 9827).
VariableComparison
(Reference Group)		Cognitive Impairment
(Ref. Robust Group)
Adj. OR (95% CI)		Physical Frailty
(Ref. Robust Group)
Adj. OR (95% CI)		Cognitive Frailty
(Ref. Robust Group)
Adj. OR (95% CI)
Sex
Age group (years)
Educational attainment		Female (male)1.02 (0.91–1.13)1.06 (0.78–1.44)1.05 (0.75–1.48)
75–84 (65–74 years)1.31 (1.17–1.47) **1.60 (1.17–2.19) **1.97 (1.40–2.79) **
≥85 (65–74 years)1.53 (1.22–1.93) **1.89 (1.21–2.98) **2.84 (1.78–4.54) **
1.08 (1.06–1.09) **0.93 (0.89–0.96) **1.04 (0.99–1.08)
Equivalent household annual incomeQ1 (Q4)1.50 (1.27–1.76) **2.22 (1.40–3.51) **2.40 (1.45–3.96) **
Q2 (Q4)1.71 (1.47–1.98) **1.43 (0.92–2.24)1.68 (1.04–2.71)
Q3 (Q4)1.37 (1.19–1.58) **1.82 (1.17–2.83) **1.30 (0.79–2.16)
VisionNot good (good)0.80 (0.71–1.01)1.52 (1.13–2.04) **1.38 (0.99–1.94)
HearingNot good (good)1.32 (1.15–1.51) **1.73 (1.29–2.33) **2.37 (1.69–3.31) **
Depressive symptomsYes (no)1.36 (1.22–1.53) **6.02 (4.48–8.09) **8.05 (5.62–11.54) **
Number of chronic diseases 1.01 (0.97–1.04)1.21 (1.12–1.30) **1.17 (1.08–1.27) **
IADLDependent
(Independent)		1.87 (1.56–2.24) **5.51 (4.13–7.34) **8.30 (6.13–11.25) **
Living arrangementLiving alone
(living with others)		1.02 (0.90–1.15)0.77 (0.56–1.06)1.01 (0.71–1.45)
Social participation
(days per week)		<1 (≥4)1.40 (1.23–1.61) **1.31 (0.92–1.85)1.91 (1.33–2.75) **
1 (≥4)1.02 (0.88–1.18)1.36 (0.93–1.98)1.46 (0.97–2.20)
2–3 (≥4)1.11 (0.98–1.26)1.39 (0.99–1.96)0.83 (0.54–1.28)
Number of closed persons 0.99 (0.98–1.01)1.01 (0.97–1.05)1.01 (0.96–1.05)
Satisfaction for friends and communityUnsatisfied
(satisfied)		1.43 (1.29–1.58) **0.99 (0.76–1.31)1.44 (1.06–1.97) *
Note. Ref. = reference group, Adj. = adjusted, OR = odds ratio, CI: confidence interval, IADL = Instrumental Activities of Daily Living. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ko, Y.; Choi, K. Exploring the Role of Social Factors in Cognitive Frailty among South Korean Older Adults. Healthcare 2024, 12, 1394. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12141394

AMA Style

Ko Y, Choi K. Exploring the Role of Social Factors in Cognitive Frailty among South Korean Older Adults. Healthcare. 2024; 12(14):1394. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12141394

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ko, Young, and Kyungwon Choi. 2024. "Exploring the Role of Social Factors in Cognitive Frailty among South Korean Older Adults" Healthcare 12, no. 14: 1394. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12141394

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop