The relation of dizziness to functional decline

OBJECTIVE: to assess the effect of dizziness on the probability that an older person will die or become functionally disabled within 2 years. Dizziness is a common symptom for which the prognosis is uncertain. This report compares the prognoses for dizzy and not-dizzy older people in order to assist clinicians who diagnose and treat these patients. DESIGN: a prospective study of a representative sample of elderly (70+) non-institutionalized Americans. Elderly subjects (n = 3,798) in the Longitudinal Study of Aging (LSOA) were asked questions about the presence of dizziness, medical conditions, and functional disability in 1984. The cohort was reinterviewed about functional disability in 1986. OUTCOME MEASURE: transition from functional ability to disability after 2 years. RESULTS: Bivariate analyses showed that dizziness predicts functional decline but not mortality. Multivariate models revealed that age, race, sensory impairment, vascular disease, and other morbidity are independent predictors of becoming disabled. Controlling for these potential confounders, dizziness does not predict an increased probability of becoming disabled. CONCLUSION: Elderly people who are dizzy should be evaluated for the presence of these related conditions.     

筛检对肝癌死亡率影响的研究

5581名HBsAg阳性的男性随机分入周期性筛检组(A组,3712人)及对照组(B组,1869人)。A组(19155.4人年)共发生肝癌257例,B组(9785.5人年)为117例,两组的肝癌发生率分别为1342/10万与1196/10万;两组肝癌死亡分别为218与109例,肝癌死亡率分别为1138/10万与1114/10万。两组中Ⅰ期肝癌病例分别为29.6％与6.0％,差异有非常显著性意义。1、3、5年相对生存率A组为23.7％、7.0％、4.0％,B组为9.7％、4.0％、4.1％。用Poisson回归模型拟合显示,在调正年龄、初筛AFP及入列年份后,筛检对于肝癌的相对危险度为0.83,95％CI为0.68～1.03,有较弱的“保护”作用,Cox回归模型拟合结果显示当临床分期未引入模型时,筛检对于肝癌有显著的“保护”作用:危险率为0.6617,95％CI为0.5234～0.8365;而模型经调整后,危险率即接近“1”,95％CI为0.74～1.26。     

Models of adult day care: findings from a national survey

We examined a nationally representative sample of 60 adult day care centers to describe the state of this evolving care modality after a decade's growth. Results indicate that day care centers can be categorized into three models of care, each of which serves a distinctive subpopulation. Model appropriateness was tested with analysis of variance of differences in participant characteristics. Services, staffing, costs, and other program features are contrasted among the three models.