Low Cognitive Performance, Comorbid Disease, and Task-Specific Disability: Findings From a Nationally Representative Survey

Transcription

1 Journal of Gerontology: MEDICAL SCIENCES 2002, Vol. 57A, No. 8, M523 M531 Copyright 2002 by The Gerontological Society of America Low Cognitive Performance, Comorbid Disease, and Task-Specific Disability: Findings From a Nationally Representative Survey A Caroline S. Blaum, 1 Mary Beth Ofstedal, 3 and Jersey Liang 2,4 Departments of 1 Internal Medicine and 2 Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 3 Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 4 Institute of Gerontology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Background. This research evaluated the association of low cognitive performance with both chronic diseases and conditions, and with difficulties in a broad array of task-specific functioning and disability measures in older adults living in the community. Methods. Data were from the first wave of the Assets and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest-Old Study, a national panel survey of individuals age 70 and older (n 6600 age-eligible self-respondents). Low cognitive performance (LCP) was defined as scores in the lowest (poorest performing) 25th percentile of a cognitive performance scale. The associations of LCP with prevalent chronic diseases and conditions and with limitations in 14 tasks (strength and mobility, instrumental activities of daily living, and activities of daily living) were evaluated. Associations of LCP and task limitations were adjusted for potential modifiers and confounders, including demographic characteristics (age, gender, race), educational attainment, chronic diseases, depressive symptoms, and sensory impairments. Data were weighted to account for complex sample design and nonresponse. Results. More than one third of people with LCP had three or more coexisting diseases and conditions. The unadjusted associations of LCP with task functioning were attenuated after covariate adjustment, but even after adjustment, LCP remained significantly and independently associated with functioning problems in 9 of 14 tasks (borderline with four more), including mobility tasks. Conclusions. Low cognitive performance, regardless of its relationship to clinical dementia, coexists with multiple chronic diseases and conditions. It is independently associated with a broad array of functioning difficulties, even after controlling for demographic characteristics, educational attainment, and chronic conditions. Chronic diseases and conditions, however, attenuate the relationship between LCP and some task difficulties. LCP should be considered an important comorbid condition associated with both chronic diseases and disability that substantially increases the health burden of many older adults who are poorly equipped to handle it. S the population ages, dementia and its associated disability are emerging as major threats to the health and well-being of older adults (1 4). The prevalence of dementia increases with age (5), paralleling the increased incidence and prevalence with age of Alzheimer s disease, other neurodegenerative conditions (6), and stroke, the major causes of clinical dementia (7). The relationship of disability to dementia has been examined in some detail. Presumed or diagnosed dementia is associated with difficulties in prevalent activities of daily living (ADLs) (1,8 14) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) (3,4,15) and predicts ADL decline (3,4,11, 15,16). Findings have been mixed as to whether dementia or presumed dementia is related to difficulty in tasks associated with mobility and strength, such as walking, climbing stairs, or carrying heavy objects (3,11,15). Recently, it has become apparent that some older adults have detectable, mild cognitive impairments, but cannot be classified as demented by current diagnostic criteria. Impairment in memory (17) and/or executive function (18) have been considered key cognitive domains affected in those with mild or subclinical cognitive impairment. Those who demonstrate mild cognitive impairment are reported to be at increased risk for progression to Alzheimer s disease (19,20) and cerebrovascular disease (21). Some people with mild cognitive deficits may have early dementia, while cognitive deficits in others may be due to medical disease burden (22 24). Many demented elders living in the community remain undiagnosed (25). So far, few population-based studies have evaluated the health status correlates of low cognitive performance (LCP), whether it is due to mild cognitive impairment, subclinical dementia, or undiagnosed dementia. Nationally representative surveys concerned with chronic disease and disability have not always measured cognitive functioning due to time constraints, concerns over respondent burden, and methodological challenges. Even if cognitive functioning has been measured, it is rarely measured across several domains. In addition, poor cognitive performance is difficult to define in large population-based studies because it is a composite of several types of cognitive problems (undiagnosed dementia, early or subclinical dementia, mild cognitive impairment, M523

2 M524 BLAUM ET AL. temporary cognitive impairment, or longstanding low cognitive performance) (25,26). Despite all these difficulties, LCP is important to study because the few population-based studies available suggest that its public health impact in older people may be significant (21,26,27). The goal of our research was to specifically evaluate the health burden associated with LCP in older people in the United States who live in the community. Our research strategy had several components: (i) We studied a sample of older adults representative of the entire U.S. population aged 70 and older living in the community in (ii) We defined LCP empirically, using respondent scores on a unique measure of cognitive impairment designed specifically for a population-based survey. Our survey data do not allow us to define mild cognitive impairment clinically. Rather, we identified those who performed poorly relative to other older adults sampled, excluding those with the most severe cognitive and medical problems (see detail in methods). We fully expect that our LCP group contains people with clinical dementia, early or subclinical dementia, mild cognitive impairment (as currently defined [17]), temporary cognitive impairment, and lifelong poor performance. (iii) We studied the relationship of LCP to a broad spectrum of chronic diseases/conditions and disability tasks to evaluate the hypothesis that LCP would show pervasive co-occurrence with both comorbid disease and functioning difficulty. (iv) We controlled for co-occurring chronic diseases and conditions, sensory impairments, depressive symptoms, and demographic and social factors in order to clarify the independent association of LCP with disability. METHODS Data The data used in this study are from the Assets and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest-Old (AHEAD) Study. AHEAD is a longitudinal survey of a nationally representative cohort of individuals who were 70 years of age and older and living in the community at the time of the baseline interview in 1993 (28). The survey is based on a multistage area probability sample of households representing the entire United States. Baseline AHEAD interviews were conducted with sampled respondents and their spouses, resulting in a sample of 7442 people aged 70 years and older. When the eligible respondent was unable to be interviewed himself or herself (often due to significant cognitive or medical problems), a proxy respondent was interviewed. Our research used only age-eligible self-respondents (n 6660) and data from the first wave (1993). Descriptive characteristics of the AHEAD sample have been published by Soldo and colleagues (28). Of the 7442 age-eligible respondents, the mean age was years, 62.4% were women, 13.2% were African American, and 13.4% had some education beyond high school (28). Model Development and Variables The dependent variables in this research were 14 of the task-specific measures of functional limitations and disabilities that are available in AHEAD. These functional tasks were modeled separately to assess how associations between functional limitations on one hand and LCP and other diseases and impairments on the other varied across the tasks. All 14 dependent variables, described below, were categorized as completely able to be performed versus able to be performed with any amount of difficulty or with any help. Functional limitation and mobility tasks. Difficulties with the three mobility tasks (walking several blocks, walking across a room, and climbing one flight of stairs) and one strength task (lifting 10 pounds). IADL tasks. Difficulties with the three cognitive IADLs (using the telephone, managing money, and taking medications) and two complex IADLs (grocery shopping and preparing meals). ADL tasks. Difficulties with five personal care tasks (transferring in/out of bed, dressing, bathing, toileting, or eating; walking was included with the mobility/functional limitation items). The study s independent variables included the following: Low cognitive performance (LCP). Age-eligible selfrespondents who scored in the lowest quartile of a cognitive impairment scale, which was a composite of 35 questions testing cognitive function, were empirically defined as the LCP group. There was no exact cutoff score for the 25th percentile, so the closest, lowest cutoff score was chosen. For the 25th percentile, that number was 15 correct (LCP group n 1383, scores of 15 or below). For the LCP group, the mean number of correctly answered items from this 35- item composite measure was (standard error [SE] 0.07, range 1 35); for the top three quartiles, the mean number correct was (SE 0.09). The common epidmiologic technique of comparing the lowest quartile to higher quartiles was chosen because our research interest specifically concerned respondents who perform poorly relative to other older adults, and thus represent a broad spectrum of community-living people with low cognitive performance. The LCP group does not represent significantly demented older people, because most of those who are highly impaired are either institutionalized and therefore out of scope of the survey, nonrespondents due to refusal or inability to contact, or interviewed by proxy and thus excluded from the analysis. The 35 questions measuring cognitive impairment administered in AHEAD include items from a mental status questionnaire and tests of memory and reasoning (see Appendix, Note 1). Taken together, these measures are intended to differentiate across the full range of cognitive functioning (see Appendix, Note 2). Because the cognitive impairment tests had to be suitable for administration over the telephone, many were drawn from the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status, which is modeled after the Mini-Mental State Exam (7) and has been validated specifically for phone use (29). Chronic diseases and conditions. The causal relationship between disability and disease (30) and the association of comorbidity with disability (31) are well known. Therefore, models evaluating the relationship of LCP and func-

3 LOW COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE, CHRONIC DISEASES, AND DISABILITY M525 tional limitation/disability tasks controlled for chronic diseases and conditions. We also explored the extent to which LCP is associated with co-occurring chronic diseases and conditions. Although some chronic diseases may be causally associated with LCP (diabetes, stroke, pulmonary disease), our cross-sectional data cannot evaluate this issue. Also, several diseases with which LCP may be causally associated, such as Alzheimer s disease and Parkinson s disease, are unmeasured in this and other self-report surveys. Chronic diseases and conditions were handled as follows: heart and lung diseases were combined into the cardiovascular group; arthritis, back problems, and hip fracture were combined into the musculoskeletal group; diabetes and stroke were considered separately. A variable indicating the presence of miscellaneous other diseases not consistently associated with task difficulty (i.e., hypertension and cancer) was also used. Sensory impairments. Self-reported problems with vision and hearing were modeled separately. Impaired vision was defined as a respondent s assessment of his or her vision as fair, poor, or blind. Similarly, impaired hearing was defined as a respondent s assessment of his or her hearing as fair or poor. Depressive symptoms. Some researchers have modeled depressive symptoms as resulting from chronic diseases and conditions (32) and others as contributing to disability, presumably resulting from severe and milder psychiatric disease (3,4,33). Depressive symptoms are also related to cognitive functioning, although the exact nature of the relationship is not yet clear. Therefore, we controlled for the independent, direct cross-sectional association of depressive symptoms to disability. Depressive symptoms were measured by a composite variable formed from eight items of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale (34) adapted specifically for the AHEAD (28). Depressive symptoms were considered to be present if the respondent affirmed depressive symptoms in six of the eight questions. Demographic factors. Also included in our models of task-specific functioning difficulty were social and demographic variables well known to be associated with cognitive functioning, functional limitations, and disability (35). Although the contribution of these variables has varied in different studies, they clearly must be considered in models that evaluate functioning difficulty (32,36). Demographic variables were controlled in all models and included age (continuous variable), race (African American or not), educational attainment (dichotomized as education beyond high school or not), and gender. Mode of administration, by telephone or face-to-face, was also controlled in all adjusted analyses. This was done because face-to-face administration depended upon age and respondent preferences. Published analyses, however, have not found any evidence that mode of administration introduces significant bias into the AHEAD interview results (27). Statistical Analysis The chi-square of association was used to test the crude, prevalent associations of low cognitive performance to chronic diseases and conditions, and then to the 14 task-specific functioning and disability measures. To examine the adjusted association of LCP to the task-specific measures, logistic regression models were adjusted for demographic characteristics, educational attainment, chronic diseases and conditions, sensory impairments, and depressive symptoms. Mode of administration (i.e., in person or by telephone) was also controlled. All analyses were weighted to adjust for differential probability of selection, nonresponse, and complex sample design using appropriate weights and the statistical package Stata (Stata, College Station, TX) (37). The logistic regression models were evaluated by standard techniques to assess significance and goodness of fit (38). Standard techniques for evaluating significance and overall goodness of fit in logistic regression models assume simple random samples and cannot be used when design effect is considered. However, because estimates are virtually the same, variances did not vary widely, and standard techniques showed appropriate models in those weighted only for selection probability, it was assumed that the fully weighted models were adequate. To evaluate potential problems with multiple comparisons due to estimating 14 models, the sample was randomly divided in half to form an analytic sample and a validation sample. The samples were compared for any statistical difference in key variables, and none was found. These models were compared with each other and with full sample models. For four task difficulties, associations were significant in one subsample and not the other, so these associations are considered to be borderline significant. All other associations were nearly identical in the analytic and validation samples. Therefore, results of the whole sample are presented for both the adjusted and unadjusted analyses for all tasks. Item nonresponse was not a major problem in the models ( 5% missing) except for the composite cognitive impairment variable. Two hundred ninety respondents did not respond to any of the 35 questions. Although these respondents are likely to be similar to respondents in the LCP group, in the absence of all information on their cognitive performance, they were excluded from analyses. However, we did evaluate these respondents in a sensitivity analysis, which was done to assess both our empirical use of the lowest 25th percentile cognitive score as the cut-point for the LCP group and the impact of the 290 people who did not respond to any cognitive measure. We compared the log-likelihoods of the logistic regression models described above using four different definitions of the LCP variable: (i) as a continuous variable (35 levels); (ii) dichotomized at two lower cut-points, the 10th and 5th percentiles, because estimates of dementia prevalence in an independent-living community population suggest that somewhere between 5% and 10% of older adults would be expected to have clinical dementia (39); (iii) model in which the LCP group included the 290 nonresponders; and (iv) model chosen to report, in which the 290 nonresponders were dropped from the analyses. For all models, our choice of the model that used a cutoff point at the 25th percentile and excluded the 290 nonresponders was associated with a better or equal overall model fit as determined by log-likelihood analyses.

4 M526 BLAUM ET AL. To assess the relationship of LCP in terms of its defined prevalence in this study (lowest 25th percentile) and its odds of being related to difficulty in a particular task, the adjusted attributable fraction was calculated using the formula AF [(p)(aor 1)/aOR] where p is the proportion of those with a particular task difficulty who have LCP and aor is the adjusted odds ratio (3). RESULTS In Table 1, data column 1 shows the frequencies of the diseases/conditions in the total sample. The next two columns compare the frequency of those conditions in respondents with or without LCP. Column 4 gives the unadjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for the relationship of diseases/conditions and LCP, while column 5 gives the proportion of respondents with a given disease/condition who are in the LCP group. For example, the percentage of respondents with visual impairment was 7.8% in the total sample, 5.6% in those not in the LCP group, and 14.8% in those in the LCP group, giving an unadjusted odds ratio of 2.9. Among respondents with visual impairment, 45% were in the lowest quartile of cognitive impairment. LCP cooccurred most frequently with stroke (12%), vision (14.8%) and hearing (8.8%) impairment, and depressive symptoms (12.2%). Significantly fewer respondents with LCP (11% vs 16%) had no other diseases or conditions (data not shown). Figure 1 compares the co-occurrence of other diseases and conditions listed in Table 1 in respondents with and without LCP. The proportions of respondents with no or only one other disease or condition were lower in those with LCP compared to those without LCP. The proportions reporting two impairments and conditions were similar for respondents with and without LCP, but the proportions with three or more comorbid conditions were higher for those with LCP. The next three tables present results for the associations of LCP with limitations in the three types of tasks, including prevalences, crude associations, and adjusted associations obtained from the logistic regression models. Results presented are from the full sample because the results from the Diseases/Conditions analytic and validation samples were very similar (see methods). Table 2 illustrates the relationship of LCP and task-specific disability measures of mobility and strength. LCP was strongly associated with difficulty in all functioning tasks before adjusting for confounders; many proportions were doubled for those in the LCP group versus all others. Controlling for demographic characteristics, educational attainment and chronic diseases and conditions (including sensory impairments and depressive symptoms) attenuated the associations of LCP with mobility and strength measures when compared to the unadjusted odds ratios. However, LCP remained significantly associated with disability in climbing stairs (OR and 95% confidence interval 1.6, ), walking across a room (1.9, ), and lifting 10 lb (1.4, ) and was borderline associated with walking several blocks (1.2, ). Table 3 shows prevalences, crude associations, and the adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the relationships of LCP with IADLs. Although the odds ratios decreased when the model was fully adjusted, LCP remained independently and strongly associated with difficulty in all these tasks. The strongest associations were noted with difficulty in handling medications (3.2, ) and money (2.7, ). Table 4 illustrates the adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the relationships of LCP and ADLs (excluding walking across a room). After model adjustment, LCP was associated with difficulty in four out of five tasks, bed transfer (1.7, ), bathing (1.8, ), eating (1.7, ), and dressing (1.5, ). However, by our definition, three of these (bed transfer, eating, dressing) had only a borderline association. Table 5 illustrates the adjusted attributable fraction for LCP for the tasks with which it was significantly associated. Significantly fewer respondents with LCP (9% vs 15%, not shown in Table 5) had no problems with any task. Given the prevalence of difficulty in specific tasks, the fraction of that difficulty that is related specifically to LCP ranged from 6% for difficulty walking several blocks to 40% for difficulty managing medications. Twenty percent or more of the diffi- Table 1. Frequencies of Chronic Diseases and Conditions in People With and Without Low Cognitive Performance (LCP) LCP Lowest 25th Percentile of Self-Respondents Total Sample (n 6436)* With Disease/ Condition (%) Not in LCP (n 4835) Group % With Disease/Condition LCP (n 1504) Group % With Disease/Condition Unadjusted Odds Ratio With Diseases (%) Cardiovascular diseases/conditions (0.9, 1.2) 23.9 Musculoskeletal diseases/conditions (1.4, 1.8) 29.8 Stroke (1.8, 2.6) 38.5 Diabetes (1.4, 1.9) 31.9 Hearing difficulty (2.2, 3.6) 45.2 Vision difficulty (2.4, 3.6) 45.1 Depressive symptoms (2.0, 3.0) 41.5 *Sample size numbers are weighted; people who did not answer any cognitive questions are excluded. (Unweighted total n 6660.) Describes association between LCP and diseases/impairments. Proportion of respondents with disease/condition who are in the lowest 25th percentile of cognitive performance. All associations of disease/conditions and LCP are significant at p.001 except for aerobic conditions.

5 LOW COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE, CHRONIC DISEASES, AND DISABILITY M527 Figure 1. Co-occurrence of low cognitive performance with other diseases and impairments. Figure demonstrates that respondents with low cognitive performance (LCP) (lowest 25th percentile) had more coexisting conditions, whereas those not in the LCP group had fewer coexisting conditions. culty in eight of the 13 task-specific measures can be attributed to LCP alone. (Toileting difficulty was not included in the calculation of adjusted attributable fraction because it was the only task-specific measure that was not even borderline associated with LCP.) DISCUSSION This research, in a national probability sample of older adults, describes an impressive co-occurrence of low cognitive performance with other chronic diseases and conditions, and with task-specific disability. Most diseases and conditions, and all functioning and disability task measures, were much more likely to occur in people with low cognitive performance than in those without. More than one third of people with LCP had three or more co-occurring diseases, conditions, and impairments. Low cognitive performance can therefore be considered an important marker for the presence of multiple, potentially comorbid conditions (diseases and conditions that coexist and may or may not be related to each other pathophysiologically) and an important contributor to the burden of comorbidity in older people. Conversely, those with multiple comorbid diseases and conditions are likely to have low cognitive performance. Low cognitive performance was independently associated with limitations in multiple functional tasks. Unadjusted associations of LCP with difficulty in all 14 tasks studied were strong and significant. After full multivariate adjustment, only one task difficulty had no significant association with LCP; four had a borderline association; and nine remained strongly and significantly associated. For more than half of these tasks, 20% to 40% of the functioning difficulty in the older population is specifically associated with low cognitive performance and is not explained by demographic characteristics, educational attainment, or prevalent chronic diseases and conditions, including sensory problems and depressive symptoms. Disabilities associated with low cognitive performance represented a broad array of tasks and included those represented in multiple disability domains. Tasks such as managing money and medications, traditionally considered tasks related to cognition, were highly associated, as were complex tasks such as grocery shopping and preparing meals. We noted somewhat more attenuation of the association between LCP and these IADL tasks by adjustment for chronic diseases and conditions, suggesting a potentially larger role for chronic conditions in mediating these relationships. Future research and longitudinal evaluation would be necessary to test this hypothesis. Two tasks associated with mobility, walking across a room and climbing stairs, were also significantly associated with low cognitive performance. The relationship of LCP to mobility limitations has been noted before (3,4,15), but often the mobility item walking across a room is included within an ADL scale. The cognition to mobility relationship noted in this study is not likely due to major strokes because all models controlled for reported stroke. Of course, early cerebrovascular disease and strokes that are not noted by respondents would be unmeasured and have been associated with LCP in other population-based studies (21). In addition, LCP may be associated with other neurological impairments such as peripheral neuropathies, unsteady gait, and balance problems that are related to mobility limitations. Such problems, also unmeasured in this data, could be asso- Table 2. Associations of Strength and Mobility Task Difficulty in People With and Without Low Cognitive Performance (LCP) LCP Lowest 25th Percentile of Self-Respondents Task Difficulty (Functional Limitation or Disability)* Total Sample n 6436 % With Difficulty With LCP n 1504 % With Difficulty Without LCP n 4835 % With Difficulty Unadjusted Odds Ratio Adjusted Odds Ratio (Full) Lift 10 pounds (2.0, 2.6) 1.4 (1.2, 1.6) Climb stairs (2.4, 3.1) 1.6 (1.3, 1.9) Walk blocks (2.0, 2.6) 1.2 (1.0, 1.5) Walk across room (3.0, 3.9) 1.9 (1.6, 2.4) *All crude (unadjusted) associations of limitations/disabilities and LCP are significant at p.001. Sample size numbers are weighted; people who did not answer any cognitive questions are excluded. (Unweighted total n 6660.) Adjusted for age, gender, race, educational attainment, mode of administration, cardiovascular conditions, musculoskeletal conditions, stroke, diabetes, cancer, hypertension, hearing and visual impairments, and depressive symptoms; weighted for selection probability and sampling design. p.01 in both derivation and validation dataset. p.01 in either derivation or validation dataset.

6 M528 BLAUM ET AL. Table 3. Associations of IADL Task Limitations in People With and Without Low Cognitive Performance (LCP) LCP Lowest 25th Percentile of Self-Respondents Task Difficulty (Functional Limitation or Disability)* Total Sample n 6436 With LCP n 1504 Without LCP n 4835 Unadjusted Odds Ratio Adjusted Odds Ratio (Full) Meal (3.4, 5.3) 2.3 (1.7, 3.2) Grocery (3.3, 4.5) 1.7 (1.4, 2.1) Money (3.4, 4.7) 2.7 (2.2, 3.3) Phone (4.7, 9.3) 2.2 (1.5, 3.3) Medicine (5.0, 11.1) 3.2 (2.1, 5.0) Note: IADL instrumental activity of daily living. *All crude (unadjusted) associations of limitations/disabilities and LCP are significant at p.001. Sample size numbers are weighted; people who did not answer any cognitive questions are excluded. (Unweighted total n 6660.) Adjusted for age, gender, race, educational attainment, mode of administration, cardiovascular conditions, musculoskeletal conditions, stroke, diabetes, cancer, hypertension, hearing and visual impairments, and depressive symptoms; weighted for selection probability and sampling design. p.01 in both derivation and validation dataset. ciated with early degenerative neurological diseases or severe medical diseases, in turn associated with LCP. LCP was not uniformly associated with limitations in personal care (ADL limitations). A potential explanation for this is the low prevalence of difficulties with some of these tasks in the sample and the fact that the most impaired respondents, who required proxies, were excluded. The two major findings of this research are important to consider together. Despite the co-occurrence of LCP with multiple diseases and conditions, LCP remains independently associated with most task limitations after adjusting for chronic diseases and conditions. This independent association of LCP with task limitations is not surprising because LCP should be related to early degenerative neurological disease (20) or preclinical atherosclerotic brain disease (21). However, some respondents may have LCP related to nonneurological chronic diseases, because adjustment for chronic diseases and conditions does attenuate the odds ratios for the associations of LCP and some task limitations. While self-reported chronic medical diseases have generally explained only a small part of the variance in cognitive impairment in other studies (27,40), LCP may be associated with severe medical disease and other disease-related variables, such as medications, which are unmeasured in these data. For example, although we controlled for heart disease, diabetes, and depressive symptoms (among other conditions), our data do not describe how severe these conditions were or how many medications people reporting these conditions were taking. Given our reliance on self-reported data, it is important to consider the potential influence of low cognitive impairment on reports of chronic disease and functional limitations. As noted by Belli and colleagues (41), studies that have compared older and younger respondents in terms of the accuracy of self-reports of factual information and retrospective behaviors (e.g., automobile ownership, voting behavior, health care utilization) have either found no age differences (42,43) or some underreporting on the part of older respondents (44). A recent report on the accuracy of selfreported health services use among older adults found that while older adults underreported utilization, no specific characteristics were correlated with inaccurate reports (45). There have been a few studies on self-report of medical conditions, which have generally found that report accuracy, when compared to the medical record (which may also be inaccurate) or objective data (46), depends more on the Table 4. Associations of Personal Care (ADL) Task Limitations in People With and Without Low Cognitive Performance (LCP) LCP Lowest 25th Percentile of Self-Respondents Task Difficulty (Functional Limitation or Disability)* Total Sample n 6436 With LCP n 1504 Without LCP n 4835 Unadjusted Odds Ratio Adjusted Odds Ratio (Full) Dress (2.3, 3.2) 1.5 (1.2, 1.9) Bed (2.6, 3.9) 1.7 (1.3, 2.3) Eat (2.2, 4.0) 1.7 (1.2, 2.3) Bathe (2.9, 4.1) 1.8 (1.4, 2.2) Toileting (1.5, 2.7) 1.1 (0.7, 1.5) Note: ADL activity of daily living. *All crude (unadjusted) associations of limitations/disabilities and LCP are significant at p.001. Sample size numbers are weighted; people who did not answer any cognitive questions are excluded. (Unweighted total n 6660.) Adjusted for age, gender, race, educational attainment, mode of administration, cardiovascular conditions, musculoskeletal conditions, stroke, diabetes, cancer, hypertension, hearing and visual impairments, and depressive symptoms; weighted for selection probability and sampling design. p.01 in both derivation and validation dataset. p.01 in either derivation or validation dataset.

7 LOW COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE, CHRONIC DISEASES, AND DISABILITY M529 Table 5. Contribution of Low Cognitive Performance (LCP) in People With Task Difficulties Frequencies and Adjusted Attributable Fraction of LCP to Task-Specific Difficulty Task Difficulty* Proportion With Task Difficulty in LCP Group Attributable Fraction (%) Lift 10 pounds Climb stairs Walk blocks Walk across room Meal Grocery Money Phone Medicine Dress Eat Bed Bathe *Toileting difficulty was not significant and is omitted for that reason; 37.7% of those with toileting difficulty were in the LCP group. Proportion of respondents with the limitation/disability who are in the lowest 25th percentile of cognitive performance (example, of those with difficulty handling medications, 68.5% are in the LCP group; 40% of difficulty handling medication is attributable to LCP). specific disease than the characteristics of the older respondent (46 51). Although older adults may underreport certain diseases, particularly cardiovascular diseases, variations in cognition have not been shown to be related (47). For other diseases or conditions (i.e., rheumatoid arthritis, hip fracture), self-report by older adults has been found to compare favorably to the medical record (48) or to the general adult population (49). This study has several limitations besides our use of selfreported information. Our data were cross-sectional so we cannot test hypotheses about causation and the direction of relationships. However, because longitudinal data from the AHEAD are now available, this research forms the first step in the study of the antecedents and outcomes of LCP and the relationship of LCP to disability transitions. The cutoff point for our measure of LCP was arbitrary, although we had a substantive basis for that choice, and it was based on a standard epidemiological technique. In addition, our sensitivity analysis suggested there was reasonable statistical criteria for using that cutoff. Also, our chosen prevalence is similar to prevalences reported using other methods in other populations. For example, the prevalence of mild cognitive impairment measured using completely different methods has been reported as 16% (26) and 24% among those aged 65 to 79 (52). This research makes several contributions to our knowledge about the relationship of low cognitive performance to functioning. First, we examined a broad array of task-specific limitations and disabilities. Although it is often reasonable to aggregate different tasks, from a practical and clinical point of view, an individual s problems with specific tasks are highly relevant in order to provide assistance. From an analytic point of view, aggregating tasks can obscure the relationship of LCP across the full spectrum of functional difficulty. Second, the data used in this analysis come from a nationally representative sample of older adults in the United States and contain information about many diseases, conditions, and disabilities. As such, it joins the few other population-based studies such as the Established Populations for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly (53), the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (54), and the Kungsholmen Project (26) to complement more clinically oriented studies of volunteers, studies without the full spectrum of disability or cognitive measures, and studies of people who are already disabled. Finally, the cognitive measures used have been designed specifically to capture a wide range of functioning. The rationale for the choice of these measures and their psychometric properties and construct validity have been described in detail (27). Unfortunately, the few population-based studies available have used different measures to define low cognitive performance (26,52,54), so there is not yet a standard definition. However, one suggested definition of mild cognitive impairment specifically states that ADLs are not impaired (17). In our study, we found that ADLs were not strongly associated with LCP as we defined it, suggesting at least some empirical comparison between definitions. Regardless, our LCP group should be considered to include people with multiple types of cognitive problems, including clinical dementia, early or subclinical dementia, mild cognitive impairment, temporary cognitive impairment, and lifelong poor performance. This research demonstrated that, regardless of the ultimate diagnosis, low cognitive performance is a marker for difficulty in a wide variety of functional tasks. While LCP coexists with multiple chronic diseases and impairments, it is independently associated with difficulty in most functional tasks. Therefore, LCP should be considered an important comorbidity with a significant impact on disability in older adults. Our results also point out the need for longitudinal population-based studies to answer several clinically related questions about LCP: What proportion of LCP is related to early or preclinical dementia and what proportion is related to chronic disease burden? If LCP is related to chronic disease burden, what mediates that relationship disease severity, medications, disease interactions? Would management of comorbid conditions improve functioning in people with LCP? Answers to such questions will have important implications for clinical practice. Already, routine evaluation of cognitive impairment in older adults is becoming more common as preclinical dementia and/or early cognitive decline is increasingly recognized by physicians, patients, and families. Interventions such as medication review, appropriate management of chronic disease, use of cholinesterase inhibitors, and stroke prevention measures are now offered to some people with LCP. Unfortunately, older adults with LCP would be expected to have significant difficulty handling medical and lifestyle instructions associated with comorbid chronic diseases, on the one hand, and adapting to disabilities, on the other hand. Future research is needed to evaluate whether and how LCP can be treated and whether such treatment will result in improved functioning for many older adults.

8 M530 BLAUM ET AL. Acknowledgments This research was supported by the Brookdale Foundation, The John A. Hartford Academic Geriatric Recruitment Initiative, the U.S. HHS PHS National Institutes of Health Grants 1 K08 AG to Dr. Blaum, and AG to the Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center at the University of Michigan. We thank Tisha Moore for her manuscript preparation and assistance with development of figures and tables. Address correspondence to Caroline S. Blaum, MD, MS, Center on Aging and Health, 2024 E. Monument Street, Suite 2-700, Baltimore, MD cblaum@mail.jhmi.edu References 1. Warren EK. A correlation between cognitive performance and daily functioning in elderly people. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 1989;2: Reed BR, Jagust WJ, Seab JP. Mental status as a predictor of daily function in progressive dementia. Gerontologist. 1989;29: Guccione A, Felson D, Anderson J, et al. The effects of specific medical conditions on the functional limitations of elders in the Framingham Study. Am J Public Health. 1994;84(3): Fried LP, Ettinger WH, Lind B, Newman AB, Gardin J. Physical disability in older adults: a physiological approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(7): Jorm AF, Jolley D. The incidence of dementia: a meta-analysis. Neurology. 1998;51: Evans DA, Funkenstein HH, Albert MS, et al. Prevalence of Alzheimer s Disease in community population of older persons. JAMA. 1989;262(18): Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-mental state : a practical method of grading the cognitive status of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12: Bohnstedt M, Fox PJ, Kohatsu ND. Correlates of Mini-Mental Status Examination scores among elderly demented patients: the influence of race ethnicity. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(12): Vitaliano P, Breen A, Albert M. Memory, attention, and functional status in community-residing Alzheimer s type dementia patients and optimally healthy aged individuals. J Gerontol. 1984;39: Swanson EA, Maas ML, Buckwalter KC. Alzheimer s residents cognitive and functional measures: special and traditional care unit comparison. Clin Nurs Res. 1994;3(1): Moritz DJ, Kasl SV, Berkman LF. Cognitive functioning and the incidence of limitations in activities of daily living in an elderly community sample. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;141(1): Hajek VE, Gagnon S, Ruderman JE. Cognitive and functional assessments of stroke patients: an analysis of their relation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78(12): Bucks RS, Ashworth DL, Wilcock GK, Siegfried K. Assessment of activities of daily living in dementia: development of the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale. Age Ageing. 1996;25(2): Baum C, Edwards DF. Cognitive performance in senile dementia of the Alzheimer s type: the Kitchen Task Assessment. Am J Occup Ther. 1993;47(5): Smits C, Deeg D, Jonker C. Cognitive and emotional predictors of disablement in older adults. J Aging Health. 1997;9(2): Gill TM, Williams CS, Richardson ED, Berkman LF, Tinetti ME. A predictive model for ADL dependence in community-living older adults based on a reduced set of cognitive status items. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997;45(4): Petersen RC. Mild cognitive impairment: transition between aging and Alzheimer s disease. Neurologia. 2000;15(3): Royall D, Chiodo L, Polk M. Correlates of disability among elderly retirees with subclinical cognitive impairment. J Gerontol Med Sci. 2000;55A:M541 M Bozoki A, Giordani B, Heidebrink JL, Berent S, Foster NL. Mild cognitive impairments predict dementia in nondemented elderly patients with memory loss. Arch Neurol. 2001;58(3): Morris JC, Storandt M, Miller JP, et al. Mild cognitive impairment represents early-stage Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol. 2001;58(3): Ferrucci L, Guralnik JM, Salive ME, et al. Cognitive impairment and risk of stroke in the older population. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996;44(3): Breteler MM, Claus JJ, Grobbee DE, Hofman A. Cardiovascular disease and distribution of cognitive function in elderly people: the Rotterdam Study. BMJ. 1994;308(6944): Haan MN, Weldon M. The influence of diabetes, hypertension, and stroke on ethnic differences in physical and cognitive functioning in an ethnically diverse older population. Ann Epidemiol. 1996;6(5): Strachan MW, Deary IJ, Ewing FM, Frier BM. Is type II diabetes associated with an increased risk of cognitive dysfunction? A critical review of published studies. Diabetes Care. 1997;20(3): Sternberg SA, Wolfson C, Baumgarten M. Undetected dementia in community-dwelling older people: the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48(11): Frisoni GB, Fratiglioni L, Fastbom J, Guo Z, Viitanen M, Winblad B. Mild cognitive impairment in the population and physical health: data on 1,435 individuals aged 75 to 95. J Gerontol Med Sci. 2000;55A: M322 M Herzog AR, Wallace RB. Measures of cognitive functioning in the AHEAD Study. J Gerontol Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 1997;52B(Special Issue): Soldo BJ, Hurd MD, Rodgers WL, Wallace RB. Asset and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old: an overview of the AHEAD Study. J Gerontol Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 1997;52B(Special Issue): Brandt J, Spencer M, Folstein M. The telephone interview for cognitive status. Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol. 1988;1: Fried L, Guralnik J. Disability in older adults: evidence regarding significance, etiology, and risk. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997;45(1): Verbrugge LM, Lepkowski JM, Imanaka Y. Comorbidity and its impact on disability. Milbank Q. 1989;67: Stump TE, Clark DO, Johnson RJ, Wolinsky FD. The structure of health status among Hispanic, African Amerian, and White older adults. J Gerontol Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 1997;52B(Special Issue): Kivela SL, Pahkala K. Depressive disorder as a predictor of physical disability in old age. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49(3): Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Measurement. 1977;I: Pope A, Tarlov A, eds. Disability in America: Towards a National Agenda for Prevention. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; Johnson RJ, Wolinsky FD. Gender, race, and health: the structure of health status among older adults. Gerontologist. 1994;34(1): StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 7.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation; Hosmer D, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. New York, NY: Wiley; Ganguli M, Belle S, Ratcliff G, et al. Sensitivity and specificity for dementia of population-based criteria for cognitive impairment: The MoVIES Project. J Gerontol Med Sci. 1993;48:M152 M Zelenski EM, Crimmins E, Reynolds S, Seeman T. Do medical conditions affect cognition in older adults? Health Psychol. 1998;17(6): Belli RF, Weiss PS, Lepkowski JM. Dynamics of survey interviewing and the quality of survey reports: age comparisons. In Schwarz N, Park D, Knauper B, Sudman S, eds. Cognition, Aging and Self-Reports. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press; 1997: Herzog A, Dielman L. Age differences in response accuracy for factual survey questions. J Gerontol. 1985;40: Herzog A, Rodgers W. Age differences in memory performance and memory ratings as measured in a sample survey. Psychol Aging. 1989; 4: Sudman S, Bradburn NM. Response Effects in Surveys; A Review and Synthesis. Chicago, IL: Aldine; Wallihan DB, Stump TE, Callahan CM. Accuracy of self-reported health services use and patterns of care among urban older adults. Med Care. 1999;37(7): Mittelmark MB, Psaty BM, Rautaharju PM, et al. Prevalence of cardiovascular diseases among older adults. The Cardiovascular Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1993;137(3):

9 LOW COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE, CHRONIC DISEASES, AND DISABILITY M Kriegsman DM, Penninx BW, van Eijk JT, Boeke AJ, Deeg DJ. Selfreports and general practitioner information on the presence of chronic diseases in community dwelling elderly. A study on the accuracy of patients self-reports and on determinants of inaccuracy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(12): Bush TL, Miller SR, Golden AL, Hale WE. Self-report and medical record report agreement of selected medical conditions in the elderly. Am J Public Health. 1989;79(11): Ling SM, Fried LP, Garrett E, Hirsch R, Guralnik JM, Hochberg MC. The accuracy of self-report of physician diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis in moderately to severely disabled older women. Women s Health and Aging Collaborative Research Group. J Rheumatol. 2000;27(6): Nevitt MC, Cummings SR, Browner WS, et al. The accuracy of selfreport of fractures in elderly women: evidence from a prospective study. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135(5): Haapanen N, Miilunpalo S, Pasanen M, Oja P, Vuori I. Agreement between questionnaire data and medical records of chronic diseases in middle-aged and elderly Finnish men and women. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;145(8): Barker A, Jones R, Jennison C. A prevalence study of age-associated memory impairment. Br J Psychiatry. 1995;167(5): Cornoni-Huntley J, Brock DB, Ostfeld AM, Taylor JO, Wallace RB, eds. Established Populations for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly: Resource Data Book. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; National Institutes of Health publication Ebly EM, Hogan DB, Parhad IM. Cognitive impairment in the nondemented elderly. Results from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. Arch Neurol. 1995;52(6): Received October 18, 2001 Accepted February 1, 2002 Appendix Notes 1. Below, we describe each of the cognitive impairment tests that were employed in Wave 1 of AHEAD, including their rationale and how they were administered and coded. a. Immediate recall test: Interviewers read a list of 10 short, concrete, high-frequency nouns to the respondent. As soon as the list had been read, respondents were asked to repeat as many words as possible. Respondents were given 1 point for each word that they correctly recalled for a maximum of 10 points. Together with the delayed recall test described below, this test is thought to measure memory impairment. b. Serial 7s test: Respondents were asked to start with the number 100 and subtract by 7 for five trials. Respondents were given 1 point for each correct subtraction for a maximum of 5 points. This is thought to test working memory. c. Backwards count: Respondents were asked to count backwards from 20 for 10 continuous numbers. If a respondent failed on the first try, he or she was given a second try. Two points were given for a correct outcome on the first try, 1 point for the correct outcome on the second try, and 0 points if the respondent failed on both tries. This test is thought to be a test of the speed of processing. d. Naming tests: Respondents were asked to name the day of the week and the date (day, month, year), two objects that were described by the interviewer ( what people usually use to cut paper and kind of prickly plant that grows in the desert ), and the current President and Vice- President of the United States. One point was given for a correct response on each naming test, for a maximum of 8 points. These tests are thought to measure orientation and knowledge. e. Delayed recall test: At the end of the cognition section, respondents were asked to recall as many as possible of the 10 nouns that had been previously read approximately 5 minutes earlier by the interviewer. Respondents were given 1 point for each word that was correctly recalled for a maximum of 10 points. 2. Analysis of the AHEAD cognitive impairment measures has indicated that the measures display desirable psychometric properties. As part of their evaluation of the AHEAD cognition measures, Herzog and Wallace (27) found that the measures contain a memory dimension and a second dimension that was labeled mental status. They also found that the measures formed associations with sociodemographic and health correlates that replicate well-established relationships in other studies. Thus, the measures appear to have strong internal and construct validity.