↓ Skip to main content

Control beliefs and risk for 4-year mortality in older adults: a prospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Control beliefs and risk for 4-year mortality in older adults: a prospective cohort study
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12877-016-0390-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wei Duan-Porter, Susan Nicole Hastings, Brian Neelon, Courtney Harold Van Houtven

Abstract

Control beliefs are important psychological factors that likely contribute to heterogeneity in health outcomes for older adults. We evaluated whether control beliefs are associated with risk for 4-year mortality, after accounting for established "classic" biomedical risk factors. We also determined if an enhanced risk model with control beliefs improved identification of individuals with low vs. high mortality risk. We used nationally representative data from the Health and Retirement Study (2006-2012) for adults 50 years or older in 2006 (n = 7313) or 2008 (n = 6301). We assessed baseline perceived global control (measured as 2 dimensions-"constraints" and "mastery"), and health-specific control. We also obtained baseline data for 12 established biomedical risk factors of 4-year mortality: age, sex, 4 medical conditions (diabetes mellitus, cancer, lung disease and heart failure), body mass index less than 25 kg/m(2), smoking, and 4 functional difficulties (with bathing, managing finances, walking several blocks and pushing or pulling heavy objects). Deaths within 4 years of follow-up were determined through interviews with respondents' family and the National Death Index. After accounting for classic biomedical risk factors, perceived constraints were significantly associated with higher mortality risk (third quartile scores odds ratio [OR] 1.37, 95% CI 1.03-1.81; fourth quartile scores OR 1.45, 95% CI, 1.09-1.92), while health-specific control was significantly associated with lower risk (OR 0.69-0.78 for scores above first quartile). Higher perceived mastery scores were not consistently associated with decreased risk. The enhanced model with control beliefs found an additional 3.5% of participants (n = 222) with low predicted risk of 4-year mortality (i.e., 4% or less); observed mortality for these individuals was 1.8% during follow-up. Compared with participants predicted to have low mortality risk only by the classic biomedical model, individuals identified by only the enhanced model were older, had higher educational status, higher income, and higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus and cancer. Control beliefs were significantly associated with risk for 4-year mortality; accounting for these factors improved identification of low-risk individuals. More work is needed to determine how assessment of control beliefs could enable targeting of clinical interventions to support at-risk older adults.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 26 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 16%
Psychology 8 11%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Unknown 32 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,431,277
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#2,360
of 3,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,495
of 422,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#53
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 422,106 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.