Background: Little is known about the epidemiologic features of different types of homeboundness among the elderly.
Purpose: This cross-sectional study examined prevalence and characteristics of "type 1" and "type 2" homeboundness (see definitions below) among community-living older adults.
Methods: The subjects comprised all residents aged 65 years and over living in Yoita, Niigata Prefecture, and Hatoyama, Saitama Prefecture. Subject data on sociodemographics, and physical, mental and social functioning were collected through in-person interview. Persons were defined as being homebound if he/she went outdoors only once a week or less often. Homeboundness was further classified into "type 1" or "type 2", based on the hierarchical mobility level classification (levels 1 or 2 vs. levels 3, 4, or 5). "Type 1" homebound persons included those who could not get out into the neighborhood without assistance (i.e, levels 3, 4, or 5). "Type 2" included those who were homebound, though they could get out at least into the neighborhood unassisted (i.e., levels 1 or 2). We focused on characteristics of "type 1" and "type 2" homeboundness as compared with those of respective controls, ie., non-homebound persons within the same mobility categories.
Results: Out of the eligible subjects (1588 in Yoita, and 1135 in Hatoyama), 1544 and 1002 persons participated in the survey (response rates of 97.2% and 88.3%, respectively). Among the participants, "type 1" and "type 2" homeboundness was found for 4.1% and 5.4%, respectively, in Yoita, and 3.3% and 6.8% in Hatoyama. After adjustment for potential confounders such as age, gender and mobility level, we found a significant regional difference in the prevalence of "type 2" but not of "type 1" (OR of "type 2" for Hatoyama/Yoita 1.44; 95% CI 1.02-2.03). Both types of homeboundness increased with advancing age; "type 1" and "type 2" featured in over 10% of persons aged at least 85 years and 80 years, respectively. Even after controlling for potential confounders, "type 2" showed a higher prevalence with walking disability and incontinence, and reported lower self-rated health, more depressed mood, lower functional capacity and lower social functioning. "Type 1" showed a higher prevalence with fear of falls, but a lower prevalence with basic ADL disability and a high score for Intellectual Activity, indicating reduced self-efficacy.
Conclusions: Prevalence of "type 1" and "type 2" homeboundness among community-living older adults differs depending on the residential area and age of the subjects. A substantial proportion of "type 2" homebound persons are at high risk of functional decline, indicating that "type 2" as well as "type 1" homebound persons need care-preventive programs.