Cross-sectional analysis of disability and quality of life in older individuals, indicating key factors for improvement.
Population ageing is associated with an increase in the prevalence of disabilities. Improving the quality of life (QoL) of older people has become an inevitable requirement of civilisational and social progress. This study aimed to analyse the relationships between areas of disability, QoL domains, and selected socio-demographic factors. This was a cross-sectional study conducted in a representative population of people aged 65 and older living in south-eastern Poland. The primary outcomes were the level of disability measured by the WHODAS 2.0 questionnaire and the level of QoL in the physical health, psychological, social relationships and environment domains measured by WHOQOL-BREF. Information on selected sociodemographic factors was also collected. A total of 3276 complete questionnaires were included in the analysis. The highest average level of disability was noted in the domain of Life activities: household (34.80), while the lowest QoL was in the physical domain (58.31). Women generally had lower QoL compared to men. Increasing age was significantly associated with lower QoL in the physical domain. Lower education was associated with lower QoL in the physical, social, and psychological domains. Single individuals generally had lower QoL in the psychological, social, and environment domains. Physical activity of at least 150 min/week and regular exercise were associated with significantly better QoL in all domains. Data on the relationship between QoL and functional disability are particularly important in the face of ageing population and the related challenges for countries worldwide. The results of our study could serve as a reference point for formulating health and activation programmes for older people to promote active and healthy ageing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sozańska et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: