Table 4.
Longitudinal associations between adherence to dietary patterns and changes in the frailty index between follow-up and baseline (n = 2253)
| Dietary pattern | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | (95% CI) | β | (95% CI) | β | (95% CI) | ||
| A priori defined | Reflection of adherence to national dietary guidelines | ||||||
| Dutch Healthy Diet Index (DHDI) | −0.07 | (−0.10, −0.04) | −0.07 | (−0.10, −0.03) | −0.07 | (−0.10, −0.04) | |
| A posteriori defined | Reflection of population-specific dietary patterns | ||||||
| Traditional pattern | −0.08 | (−0.11, −0.05) | −0.07 | (−0.11, −0.04) | −0.07 | (–0.11, −0.04) | |
| Carnivore pattern | 0.04 | (0.01, 0.08) | 0.03 | (0.00, 0.07) | 0.04 | (−0.01, 0.07) | |
| Health conscious pattern | 0.01 | (−0.03, 0.03) | 0.01 | (−0.03, 0.04) | 0.01 | (−0.03, 0.04) | |
Model 1: adjusted for age, sex and baseline frailty index (in z-scores)
Model 2: adjusted for age, sex, baseline frailty index (in z-scores), smoking, level of education, income, physical activity, and supplement use
Model 3: adjusted for age, sex, baseline frailty index (in z-scores), smoking, level of education, income, physical activity, supplement use, and total energy intake
Adherences to a posteriori defined patterns were additionally adjusted for each other
Regression coefficients represent the differences in frailty index over the follow-up period (in Z-scores, one Z-score represent a frailty index score of 0.06) per Z-score increase in dietary pattern adherence
Bold values indicate the significance based on a p value of <0.05