WorldCat Identities

Liljas, Ann E M.

Works: 4 works in 4 publications in 1 language and 4 library holdings
Publication Timeline
Most widely held works by Ann E M Liljas
Vision impairment and risk of frailty: the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing( )

1 edition published in 2016 in English and held by 1 WorldCat member library worldwide

Abstract: Background: Age-related vision impairment has been associated with comorbidities, current disability, and poor quality of life. However, it is unclear whether vision impairment is associated with increasing future frailty, further affecting ability to live independently. We investigated the association of poor vision with incident pre-frailty and frailty. Methods: 2836 men and women aged 60 years or more with data on vision (self-reported vision problems) and frailty status (Fried phenotype) from the nationally representative English Longitudinal Study of Ageing were followed up for 4 years for pre-frailty and frailty between 2004 and 2008. Frailty was defined according to number of Fried phenotype components present (slow walking, weak grip, self-reported exhaustion, weight loss, low physical activity) as non-frail (0 components), pre-frail (1–2), and frail (≥3). Participants non-frail at baseline were followed up for incident pre-frailty and frailty. Participants pre-frail at baseline were followed up for incident frailty. Findings: At baseline, 1396 participants (49%) were non-frail, 1178 (42%) pre-frail, and 262 (9%) frail. At follow-up, there were 367 new cases of pre-frailty and frailty among those non-frail at baseline, and 133 new cases of frailty among those pre-frail at baseline. Cross-sectional analysis showed an association between vision impairment and frailty (age-adjusted and sex-adjusted odds ratio 2·53, 95% CI 1·95–3·30; p<0·0001) which remained after further adjustment for wealth, education, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, falls, cognition, and depression. In longitudinal analysis, compared with non-frail participants with no vision impairment, non-frail participants with vision impairment had double the risk of becoming pre-frail or frail at follow-up (2·07, 1·32–3·24; p=0·002) and the association remained after further adjustment for covariates (1·86, 1·17–2·95; p=0·009). Pre-frail participants with vision impairment did not have greater risks of becoming frail at follow-up (1·34, 0·82–2·19). Interpretation: Older adults who experience poor vision and are not frail have double the risk of becoming pre-frail or frail over 4 years. Public health interventions aiming to identify and actively manage vision impairment might prevent frailty. Funding: AEML is funded by theNational Institute for Health Research School for Public Health Research (509546 ). LAC is funded by theBritish Heart Foundation (RG/10/001/28296 ) and the Medical Research Council (RG71546). SER is funded by aUK Medical Research Council fellowship (G1002391 )
Facilitators and barriers for recruiting and engaging hard-to-reach older people to health promotion interventions and related research: a systematic review( )

1 edition published in 2015 in English and held by 1 WorldCat member library worldwide

Abstract: Background: Older people from particular groups engage less in health promotion interventions and related research, potentially generating inequities. This review aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to participation in health promotion interventions or health promotion-related research in groups of older people known to participate less. Methods: We focused on older people from black and minority ethnic groups, older people in deprived areas, and those aged 85 years and older (oldest-old). We searched Medline, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, Embase, PsychINFO, SSCI, CINAHL, and SCIE databases (Jan 1, 1990, to Dec 31, 2014) to identify eligible studies reporting facilitators and barriers of recruiting or engaging any of the three groups in health interventions or health promotion-related research (see appendix for search terms). Eligible study designs included surveys, qualitative interviews and focus groups, and mixed methods. Recruitment and engagement strategies reported were identified and analysed thematically for each group. Themes were identified by two researchers independently and agreed with the team. Findings: 34 studies (three with oldest-old, 24 with black and minority ethnic groups, five within deprived areas, one with both oldest-old and black and minority ethnic groups, one with both oldest-old and deprived areas) were included. Half of studies reported mainly on recruitment; half on engagement. 16 studies focused on participation in interventions; 18 studies were on participation in related research. Facilitators for recruiting in deprived areas included targeting social aspects of participation and providing a personalised approach. Similarly, building trust was important for recruitment from black and minority ethnic groups and oldest-old. Facilitators for engaging black and minority ethnic groups included involving community leaders and recruitment during existing activities; for the oldest-old gaining family support was important. Facilitators across all groups included use of incentives and well-targeted advertising. Barriers among black and minority ethnic groups included fear of falling, poor knowledge of benefits, lack of self-confidence, family responsibilities, and cultural barriers (language, mixed-sex sessions, religious practices). Barriers among the oldest-old included tiredness and feeling too old for preventive health care. Negative social interaction with research staff was a barrier identified in deprived areas only. Barriers across all groups were lack of motivation, deteriorating health, costs, and lack of transportation. Interpretation: This review has identified numerous facilitators and barriers for recruiting and engaging hard-to-reach older people in health promotion interventions and related research; these include specific facilitators and barriers for particular groups, which should be considered in practice. Funding: This study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). AL is funded by the NIHR School for Public Health Research
Sensory impairments and incident disability in older men living in a British community: a 2 year follow-up study( )

1 edition published in 2015 in English and held by 1 WorldCat member library worldwide

Abstract: Background: Sensory impairments are common in older adults, who are a rapidly growing proportion of the UK population, making age-related sensory impairments an increasingly important public health concern. We explored the association between impairments in hearing and vision and the risk of incident mobility disability, activities of daily living (ADL), and instrumental ADL (IADL). Methods: 3981 men aged 63–85 years from the population-based British Regional Heart Study were followed from Jan 1, 2003, to April 30, 2005. Self-reported data on hearing aid use and ability to follow television at a volume acceptable to others allowed for four categories of hearing: could hear (reference group), could hear with hearing aid, could not hear and no aid, and could not hear despite aid. Vision impairment was defined as not being able to recognise a friend across a road. Measures of disability included mobility disability (defined as unable to take stairs up or down, or unable to walk 400 yards, or a combination of these movements), ADL difficulties, and IADL difficulties. Logistic regression was used to assess associations. All participants provided written, informed consent. Ethics approval was obtained from local research ethics committees. Findings: At baseline, 3108 men were free from mobility disability, 3346 were free from ADL difficulties, and 3410 were free from IADL difficulties. New cases of disability at follow-up included mobility disability (n=238), ADL (n=260), and IADL (n=207). Men who could not hear and did not use a hearing aid had greater risks of mobility disability (age-adjusted relative risk 2·24, 95% CI 1·29–3·89). Being unable to hear, irrespective of hearing aid, was associated with increased risks of ADL (without aid 1·74, 1·19–2·55; with aid 2·01, 1·16–3·46). Men who could hear and used a hearing aid and men who could not hear despite an aid had increased risks of IADL (1·86, 1·29–2·70 and 2·74, 1·53–4·93, respectively). Vision impairment was not associated with incident mobility disability. Interpretation: Older men with hearing impairment have an increased risk of subsequent disability. Prevention and correction of hearing impairment could enhance independent living in later life. Further research is warranted on the possible pathways underlying the associations, to prevent adverse health outcomes associated with age-related hearing impairment. Funding: The British Regional Heart Study is funded by the British Heart Foundation. AEML is funded by the National Institute for Health Research School for Public Health Research (509546). SER is funded by a UK Medical Research Council Fellowship (G1002391)
Engaging hard-to-reach groups in health promotion: the views of older people and professionals from a qualitative study in England( )

1 edition published in 2017 in English and held by 1 WorldCat member library worldwide

Abstract: Background: Older people living in deprived areas, from black and minority ethnic groups, and aged over 85 years are often considered hard-to-reach. This qualitative study aimed to explore their views on health promotion services, with a view to help inform best practice on engagement. Methods: Older people were recruited through primary care and community-based groups. 19 participated in an interview (n=15) or focus group (n=4); including some overlaps, 16 were from a deprived area, 12 were in black and ethnic minority groups, and 5 were aged 85 years or older. Cross-sector professionals across England with experience of working with one or more of the groups were identified with online searches and snowball sampling. 31 of 44 professionals completed an online survey. Thematic analysis was used to develop a framework of higher and lower level themes. Interpretations were discussed and agreed within the team. Findings: Older people from all hard-to-reach groups described some health-promoting activities they practised themselves, including lifelong lifestyle approaches, with a focus on maintaining independence. All groups reported cost and access considerations as barriers to participation in health promotion. Among older people in deprived areas, facilitators included monetary incentives and interventions held locally or accessible through free transport. Barriers included reluctance to seek medical help, mistrust of professionals, and negative social relationships with other participants. Professionals' successful strategies targeting this group included personalised health education focusing on their interests and engaging local services, community, peers, and family. Older people from black and ethnic minority groups reported that social opportunities and peer support facilitated engagement. Barriers focused on cultural and language differences. These barriers were also reported by professionals who reported culture-specific, tailored information alongside good relationships with community groups and families as important. For the oldest-old, home visits were popular. Poor health and lack of interest in health promotion were major barriers. Face-to-face contact and involving individuals from an early stage were reported as successful strategies by professionals. Interpretation: This is one of few studies conducted in England investigating views of both hard-to-reach older people and professionals working with them. Study limitations include selection bias because only those interested responded. Specific facilitators and barriers identified by older people and professionals may shape best practice on increasing engagement with health promotion services for hard-to-reach groups. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). AL is funded by the NIHR School for Public Health Research
Audience Level
Audience Level
  Kids General Special  
Audience level: 0.88 (from 0.88 for Vision imp ... to 0.88 for Vision imp ...)