Table 5.
Association between STOPP/START and the outcome of functional decline using logistic regression (odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CIs))
| n (%)a | Functional decline (n = 2507) Adjusted OR (95% CI)b |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1c | Model 2d | ||
| Any STOPPe (n = 917) | 204 (22.25) | 1.46 (1.11, 1.91), p = 0.007f | – |
| Number of STOPP PIMS | |||
| 0 STOPP (n = 2095) | 230 (10.98) | – | (Referent) |
| 1 STOPP (n = 663) | 116 (17.50) | – | 1.27 (0.94, 1.72), p = 0.116 |
| ≥ 2 STOPP (n = 254) | 88 (34.65) | – | 2.02 (1.36, 2.99), p < 0.001 |
| Any STARTe (n = 1067) | 212 (19.87) | 1.23 (0.95, 1.60), p = 0.114 | – |
| Number of START PPOs | |||
| 0 START (n = 1945) | 222 (11.41) | – | (Referent) |
| 1 START (n = 653) | 120 (18.38) | – | 1.28 (0.94, 1.73), p = 0.110 |
| ≥ 2 START (n = 414) | 92 (22.22) | – | 1.17 (0.83, 1.64), p = 0.364 |
aNumber and percentage who experienced functional decline at Wave 5, referent: none
bAdjusted for age group, sex, education, employment, insurance coverage, multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and functional impairment at Wave 4
cModel 1: PIP exposure assessed using binary variables for presence or absence of STOPP/START
dModel 2: PIP exposure assessed using categorical variables for presence of 0, 1 and ≥ 2 STOPP/START criteria
eReferent: none
fAssociations with p <0.05 are in bold