Next Article in Journal
Where Is the Artificial Intelligence Applied in Dentistry? Systematic Review and Literature Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
From Young to Older, the 4 Phases Method Is Efficient in Promoting Quick Weight, BMI, and Waist Circumference Reductions
Previous Article in Journal
Effective Hospital Care Delivery Model for Older People in Nigeria with Multimorbidity: Recommendations for Practice
Previous Article in Special Issue
Association between Fear of Falling and Seven Performance-Based Physical Function Measures in Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Healthcare
Volume 10
Issue 7
10.3390/healthcare10071266
healthcare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Impact of Physical Activity Levels and Functional Fitness Status on the Quality of Life Perceived by Older Adults Living in Rural and Urban Areas: The Portuguese Inland Case

by
Guilherme Eustáquio Furtado
1,
Cláudia Vaz
1,
Antonio Bovolini
1,
Ermelinda Marques
1,2,
Nuno Serra
1,
Ana Raquel Costa-Brito
1 and
Carolina Vila-Chã
1,3,*
1
Research Unit for Inland Development (UDI), Polytechnic of Guarda, 6300-559 Guarda, Portugal
2
Center for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS), 4200-450 Porto, Portugal
3
Research Center in Sports Sciences Health and Human Development (CIDESD), 5001-801 Vila Real, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2022, 10(7), 1266; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10071266
Submission received: 8 April 2022 / Revised: 28 June 2022 / Accepted: 2 July 2022 / Published: 7 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Exercise Evaluation and Prescription in Older Adults)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is influenced by several factors, such as living place, physical activity (PA), and functional fitness levels. Evidence shows that functional fitness and PA levels are strongly associated with positive HRQoL, especially in the older population. However, the impact of the living place has not been investigated as an influencing variable in this context. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the relationship between the HRQoL, PA, and functional fitness of older adults living in rural and urban areas of Portugal. A cross-sectional study was performed with community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and over (n = 261) living in the city of Guarda. The participants were assessed for sociodemographic, anthropometric, clinical health, HRQoL, PA levels, and functional fitness status. The results showed that rural residents presented higher scores of HRQoL and functional fitness than older individuals living in urban areas. Regression models showed that functional fitness variables influence the HRQoL overall score and mental and physical subcomponents of HRQoL, regardless of the living place. In contrast, PA levels only influenced the HRQoL score in rural residents. The findings suggest that intervention programs to improve the physical health, quality of life, and well-being of the older population need to consider the country’s different geographical areas.

1. Introduction

In the last decades, a steep increase in life expectancy of the older population has been observed, which does not always reflect an increment in the years lived with quality of life after 65 years old [1]. In this sense, assessing the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is considered very useful to describe the life experiences of older adults as it relates to their physical and mental health status [2]. For this reason, health professionals have increasingly used HRQoL measurements to identify older adults’ health risks and define effective interventions [3]. Previous studies have shown that older adults with poor HRQoL are at greater risk of developing more severe chronic diseases and early mortality [4,5]. Furthermore, physical and cognitive frailty syndromes were also negatively associated with HRQoL [6,7].
The maintenance or improvement of the HRQoL and functional abilities are influenced by several factors, including physical activity (PA) levels [8] and physical-functional fitness status [9,10]. Physical-functional fitness refers to the ability of the body to adapt to the external environment and cope with daily life activities, and PA is understood as any bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that require energy expenditure [11]. The term “physical inactivity” represents the non-achievement of PA guidelines, defined as less than 150 min of moderate-intensity activity per week or equivalent [12]. Both physical fitness and PA levels are typically assessed using validated methodologies and instruments [11]. For example, accelerometers and questionnaires are the most common instruments to assess PA levels, whereas physical-functional fitness is typically measured with different instruments and methodologies, considering their sub-dimensions, such as body composition, cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength, and endurance [8,11].
Physical-functional fitness improvements associated with regular practice of PA can increase older adults’ HRQoL [13,14,15,16] and life satisfaction [17]. Several studies demonstrated that high handgrip strength levels are negatively associated with disability, sarcopenia, and morbidity [18,19,20], influencing the perceived HRQoL of older adults [16]. Moreover, muscle strength and endurance losses in the lower limbs have been associated with imbalance [21], and increased risk and fear of falling [22].
Despite the positive effects of PA and physical fitness status on health and HRQoL [9,13], poor levels of PA [23] and physical fitness [24] are highly prevalent among older adults [21,22]. Due to the aging process, a reduction in PA levels has been associated with earlier deterioration in functional-physical fitness capacities [8] and a high incidence of non-communicable diseases over time [25,26]. Several factors directly or indirectly related to PA and physical fitness have been previously identified [11,27,28]. Among them, advanced age, physical limitations, poor cognitive status, low social support, and depression are major sociodemographic risk factors associated with physical inactivity behavior [29]. In Portugal, a study with a representative sample of adults (18 to 64 years) revealed that being male, young, and highly educated were factors associated with high levels of physical activity [30]. These sociodemographic factors also influence HRQoL in older individuals [31,32]. Furthermore, clinical health status seems to be a key determinant of HRQoL [31], and influences both PA and physical fitness status [33].
Besides the well-known influence of these variables on HRQoL and physical health status in older people, there is some evidence that older rural residents experience a health disadvantage compared to urban residents [34]. Nonetheless, there is no consistent evidence that older people living in rural areas have low scores of physical fitness, PA, and HRQoL compared to those living in urban areas [35,36,37,38]. For instance, in studies performed in China (n = 1029) and Brazil (n = 2292), the urban older residents showed greater HRQoL than their rural counterparts [39,40]. On the other hand, a large community survey study conducted in Italy (n = 685) reported that older rural residents perceived HRQoL more positively than urban residents [41]. Studies carried out in Portugal (n = 483), and Serbia (n = 100) revealed that older adults living in both urban and rural areas perceived HRQoL similarly [42,43].
Conflicting results regarding the impact of living in rural versus urban areas on HRQoL have been previously reported [40,41,43]. In addition, whether PA levels or functional-physical fitness status better predicts HRQoL levels remains to be established. A study conducted in Turkey (n = 174) showed that the living environment did not influence the physical function status and HRQoL of older people [44]. In this study, no associations between the HRQoL and physical function variables were presented [44]. A study conducted in Brazil also showed no differences between rural and urban areas regarding HRQoL and PA [45]. On the other hand, in another study conducted in Brazil, a positive correlation between PA levels and the HRQoL was found in older adults living in rural areas [45]. The authors also observed that older persons from the rural area, who were regularly active, had higher HRQoL scores than urban individuals. Conversely, in a Japanese study, urban participants had better HRQoL scores than rural ones, and PA was associated with their perception of HRQoL [46].
The contradictory results may be explained by distinct environmental features related to rural and urban settings, but also to specific characteristics of the population (i.e., sociodemographic and clinical status). In this sense, the implementation of global guidelines implies acting locally by understanding the specific contexts. Thus, this study aimed to investigate differences in the perceived HRQoL of older adults living in rural and urban areas, and its association with PA levels and functional-physical fitness status. Based on the assumptions presented above, we hypothesised: (i) the HRQoL perceived by older adults differs between rural and urban contexts; (ii) both PA levels and functional-physical fitness status present significant positive correlations with HRQoL; (iii) sociodemographic, anthropometric, and clinical health status affects the strength of correlations.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This cross-sectional study was part of an epidemiological research project that assessed PA levels, HRQoL, physical-functional fitness status, clinical health status, and barriers to PA in community-dwelling older adults (GMove+, Guarda in Motion to Promote Active Ageing).

2.2. Participants and Settings

Data collection was carried out between February 2017 and March 2018 in the municipality of Guarda, localised in the Inland region of Portugal. Approximately 400 community-dwelling older adults were contacted, and 317 of them accepted the invitation to participate in the first stage of the study. Participants were recruited through the dissemination made at public health centres in collaboration with local physicians and health professionals. Participants were included if they (i) were older than 65 years, (ii) did not have any chronic disease that impaired their mobility and daily life tasks, (iii) lived in their home, and (iv) accepted participating in the study.
Exclusion criteria of participants comprised: (i) having difficulty moving with full autonomy; (ii) having cognitive limitations that affected the comprehension and performance in the psychometric tests (questionnaires); and (iii) living in social and health care support centres. A total of 259 participants, residing in urban (n = 139, 54%) and rural (n = 120, 46%) areas, were included in the data analysis. Personal data were controlled anonymously, and ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Local Health Unit of Guarda (no 11136) in compliance with the guidelines for research with human beings of the Helsinki Declaration [47]. Before data collection, all participants were informed about the purpose of the project, with informed consent signed.

2.3. Outcomes Measures

Data collection was performed by a trained research team. The HRQoL, PA levels, and functional-physical fitness status were treated as central outcomes. The sociodemographic, anthropometric, and clinical health status variables were treated as covariates (in the regression model), following the evidence of previous studies, which demonstrated the influence of these indicators on HRQoL [31,48,49].

2.4. Central Outcomes

2.4.1. Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed using the Portuguese version of the SF-36 questionnaire [50]. The SF-36 consists of 36 items that were used to compute scores on eight dimensions of HRQoL (physical functioning, physical health, bodily pain, general health status, vitality, social functioning, emotional health status, and mental health), and measure changes in health status as a ninth dimension [51]. The scores range between 0 and 100, with a higher score indicating a better HRQoL [52,53]. Based on the score of eight dimension scores, the HRQoL overall score, and physical component (PCS) and mental component (MCS) summaries were generated, through the sum of the standardised scores of each dimension, according to the respective coefficients of the MCS and PCS subcomponents [53], previously described in the questionnaire validation study for the Portuguese population [54]. This scale presented high internal consistency and reliability in the validation process, with Cronbach alpha (α) ranging from 0.80 to 0.86 [50].

2.4.2. Physical Activity Levels

A Portuguese version of the Yale Physical Activity Survey (YPAS-p) for older adults was used to assess PA levels [55]. Activity dimension indices were computed by multiplying the frequency score by the duration score for each of the five categories, posteriorly multiplied by a weighting factor [53]. The summary index corresponds to the sum of these five individual indices [56]. Good internal consistency (α ≥ 0.83) and temporal stability (ICC > 0.75) were reported in the Portuguese version of the YPAS-p transcultural validation study [57].

2.4.3. Physical-Functional Fitness Status

The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and Handgrip Strength Test (HGT) were used to evaluate the physical-functional fitness status [58]. The SPPB test is composed of the following tests: (i) the standing balance test, which consists of maintaining (for 10 s) the following 3 different foot postures: side-by-side (position 1), semi-tandem (position 2), and tandem stance (position 3); (ii) the 4 metres test to assess gait speed, consisting of two attempts to walk; (iii) the time necessary by each participant to complete five full chair stands with the arms folded across the chest [59]. The SPPB score varies between 0 and 12 points (each task scoring from 0 to 4 points). A score of 0 represents an inability to carry out the test, and a score of 12 is the best test performance. The final sum assigns a categorical classification, indicating a very poor (0–3 points), a low (4–6 points), a moderate (7–9 points), or a good (10–12) capacity of participants performing the battery tests [58,59]. The HGT was measured with a portable hydraulic dynamometer (Jamar®, Lafayette, LA, USA). The participants were asked to grip the dynamometer as hard as possible for 5 s, with the arm extended at the side of the body, in a standing position, without pressing the instrument against the body or bending at the elbow. Three trials were performed with each hand, with a brief rest between the trials. The best performance was used for the analysis.

2.5. Covariates

2.5.1. Sociodemographic Status

Sex was based on participant self-identification and coded as a binary variable: female and male. Age was treated as a continuous variable. Level of education was assessed as a categorical variable according to the Portuguese Educational System [60], and 3 subcategories were created: <4th Grade, = 4th Grade, and >4th Grade. Income level was assessed based on the Portuguese average salary scales and grouped into 3 subcategories: Low (<500€), Average (500€–750€), and High (>750€) income. The residential area was coded as a binary variable (Urban or Rural) following the European Referential Territorial Network [61]. The current spouse status of participants was also coded as binary variables (Yes or No).

2.5.2. Clinical Health Status

The comorbidities were converted into a score using the Charlson comorbidity index [62]. This index measures disease burden as a weighted index based on 19 comorbid conditions. The score, ranging from 0 to 10 and treated as a continuous variable, can be combined with age to form a single index [63]. One point for each additional ten years is added to the initial score, which has been shown to predict 1- and 10-years mortality [62]. Self-reported health status was assessed by the SF-36 questionnaire question: “In general, you would say your health is?”. Self-reported health status was treated as a dichotomous variable, and the participants were classified as having a Negative or Positive health perception [64].

2.5.3. Anthropometrics

Anthropometric and body composition variables were measured in accordance with standard protocols previously described [65], and included the following measures: (i) body mass (Kg), measured by a portable scale with a precision of 0.1 kg (InBody 270, Korea); (ii) stature (cm), determined using a portable stadiometer with a precision of 0.1 cm (Rosscraft, Vancouver, BC, Canada); and (iii) body mass index (BMI), calculated according to the formula BMI = weight/height2.

3. Data Analysis

Data were analysed with Statistical Package for Social Science Statistics 24 (SPSS Inc., Armonk, NY, USA). The significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05. The normality of the continuous variables (age, anthropometric, CCI index, and drug use) was assessed with the Shapiro–Wilk test. Continuous variables were described as mean and standard deviation (SD). Categorical variables data were described by frequency and percentage (%). In the comparison analysis by living place (urban versus rural), Student’s t-test and Mann–Whitney (quantitative variables), or Chi-squared (qualitative variables), were computed according to their normality status. Standardised differences between average were reported using Cohen’s d effect size values (ES) and interpreted as follows: <0.20 (trivial), 0.21 to 0.59 (small), 0.60 to 1.19 (moderate), 1.20 to 1.99 (large), 2.0 to 3.9 (very large), and >4.0 (extremely large) [66]. Spearman’s coefficients were computed to assess correlations among HRQoL overall score PCS and MCS subcomponents, PA summary index, and physical-functional fitness variables of SPBB and HGT tests. The correlations magnitude was interpreted according to the following scores: trivial (r < 0.1), small (0.1 < r < 0.3), moderate (0.3 < r < 0.5), large (0.5 < r < 0.7), very large (0.7 < r < 0.9), and nearly perfect (r > 0.9); positive or negative [66]. The final analysis included regression models using the stepwise method. In model 1 (unadjusted), each component of physical-functional fitness (independent variables) was correlated to HRQoL overall score and physical and mental component summaries (dependent variables), using linear regression analysis. In model 2, a multivariate analysis was performed adjusting the dependent variables of model 1 for sociodemographic, anthropometric, and clinical health co-variates. The collinearity was checked using the variance inflation factor test in all regression models.

4. Results

Table 1 shows the sociodemographic, anthropometric, clinical health status, and living place characterization. A total of 259 participants completed the surveys and physical tests and were included in the final analysis. The statistical results indicate that participants living in urban areas were older than their rural counterparts. The total sample consisted mostly of females (n = 155, 60%), and the same trend was maintained within each residence group (rural vs. urban).
The majority of the urban (n = 70) and rural (n = 66) older adults had the 4th-grade schooling level. The number of participants reporting “low income” was higher in urban older individuals (n = 64), whereas a higher percentage of urban area residents reported “higher income”. (n = 53). A greater percentage of urban residents lived with a partner (n = 95), whereas rural residents lived predominantly alone (n = 63). No statistical differences were observed regarding the anthropometric variables (weight, height, and BMI) between older adults living in rural and urban areas. In Table 1, the comorbidity index shows significant statistical differences between older people living in rural and urban regions (p ≤ 0.05), with participants in urban settings displaying higher values. Consequently, statistical differences were found in medication use. Finally, the majority of both urban (n = 132) and rural (n = 86) residents claimed to have a positive self-perception of health (<0.001).
Table 2 presents the HRQoL subdimensions, YPAS-p indexes, and functional-physical fitness results of the total sample and subgroups ranked by living place areas. Statistical differences were found for all HRQoL subdimensions, except for general health, mental health, and changes in health status. Likewise, statistical differences were found in the HRQoL overall score, and PCS and MCS subcomponents. These results revealed that, in general, the participants who lived in the rural area had a better HRQoL than urban residents.
Regarding PA levels (and their subdimensions), no statistical differences between the place of residence subgroups were observed in these variables. Statistically significant differences were found in the physical-functional fitness tests, indicating that rural participants had greater SPPB and HGT scores than the urban residents. These results suggest that inhabitants living in rural areas have higher physical-functional fitness levels than urban residents.
Table 3 shows the correlations between physical-functional fitness tests, YPAS-p summary index, and HRQoL (overall score, PCS and MCS subcomponents) by living place. Among older participants living in the urban areas, significant correlations were observed between the YPAS-p summary index and the HRQoL overall score. Positive and moderate correlations were observed between physical-functional tests (SPPB and HGT) and HRQoL overall score, as well as PCS and MCS scores. Concerning rural residents, the YPAS-p summary index presented small correlations with the PCS and HRQoL overall score. Statistically significant moderate and positive correlations emerged among physical-functional tests (SPPB and HGT), and PCS and MCS scores.
Table 4 shows the regression analysis of the association between HRQoL overall score (and its main subdomains), PA levels, and physical-functional fitness of SPPB and HGT in participants living in urban areas. The YPAS-p summary index was significantly associated with HRQoL overall score, explaining 18% of the variance in the HRQoL overall score when covariates are introduced (adjusted model 2) (F (1.126) = 4.353; p = 0.040), R2 = 0.18). The SPPB total score presented statistical associations with all the three HRQoL variables in both regression models (p < 0.001). Moreover, when covariates were introduced in the regression model, the explained variance increased in the association with PCS (19 to 23%), MCS (12 to 14%), and HRQoL overall score (26 to 28%). Considering the three HRQoL variables, the SPPB total score showed a better explanation of the HRQoL overall score in both unadjusted model 1 (F (1.137) = 44.840; p < 0.001); R2 = 0.26) and adjusted regression model 2 (F (1.126) = 29.949; p < 0.001); R2 = 0.28).
The HGT also presented a significant correlation with all the three HRQoL variables. When covariates were controlled, the explained variance of HGT increased in the association with PCS (12 to 18%), MCS (0.2 to 14%), and HRQoL (12 to 21%). Additionally, the HGT displayed a better power of variance explanation in the adjusted model 2 of both the PCS subcomponent (F (2.148) = 74.140; p < 0.022); R2 = 0.18) and HRQoL overall score (F (1.228) 39.976; p < 0.001); R2 = 0.21).
As depicted in Table 5, in the rural area residents, the YPAS-p summary index was correlated with PCS in the unadjusted (model 1) and HRQoL overall score in both models. When covariates were added to the regression model, the explained variance increased in the association of YPAS-p with the PCS (0.4 to 19%) and HRQoL overall score (0.3 to 28%) subdomains. The better power of variance (28%) emerged from the adjusted model 2 (F (1.185) = 34.820; p = 0.000); R2 = 0.28). The SPPB score was associated with all the three analysed HRQoL variables in both regression models (p < 0.001), except with the MCS in model 2 (p = 0.77). In the SPPB scores, the better power of variance emerged from the adjusted model 1, explaining 36% of variance in HRQoL overall score (F (1.158) = 7.875; p < 0.001); R2 = 0.36). When covariates were introduced, the SPPB-explained variance increased in the association of the PCS (17 to 25%) and the HRQoL (22 to 36%). Finally, the HGT correlated with all HRQoL components, except with the PCS in the adjusted model 2 (p = 0.105). Similarly, for urban residents, the explained variance increased when covariates were controlled. The better power of variance was found in adjusted model 2 of HGT, explaining 34% of variance in the HRQoL overall score (F (2.721) = 7.342; p = 0.000); R2 = 0.34).

5. Discussion

This study aimed to assess the perceived HRQoL of older adults living in rural and urban areas, and to examine the influence of PA levels and physical-functional fitness status on their perception. The results indicate three major findings: firstly, the rural residents presented a better HRQoL and physical-functional fitness status than their urban counterparts, corroborating our first hypothesis; the SPPB scores and handgrip strength predicted the HRQoL in both rural and urban older adults residents, partially supporting our second hypothesis; and finally, the predictive power of physical function variables was increased when the models were adjusted for sociodemographic, anthropometric, and clinical health covariates, corroborating the third hypothesis of the study.

5.1. Perceived HRQoL of Older Adults Living in Rural and Urban Areas

In the present study, the rural older participants showed better HRQoL than the urban older adults residents. A Portuguese study with a similar population presented contrary results, with older people living in rural areas presenting a lower perceived HRQoL compared to urban residents [67]. The authors mentioned that the low level of education and the lack of systematic (rather than casual) PA may explain some of the reported results. In our study, the higher HRQoL in rural residents may be related to the influence of good clinical health status reported by the participants (high score of self-rated perception, low incidence of comorbidities, and subsequently low intake of medication).
Previous research performed across different countries comparing HRQoL in rural versus urban older residents also reported conflicting results. A study involving Serbian older participants reported a poor HRQoL among urban residents compared to rural residents [43]. Greater poverty, loss of a spouse, life without family members, and lower education were the factors that most contributed to poor HRQoL among the Serbian urban older adults [43]. Similar results were obtained in studies in China (n = 9663), Japan (n = 880), and Brazil (n = 2992) [40,46,68]. In these studies, factors such as lack of opportunities for leisure PA, cultural activities, and attractive outdoor spaces were described as the main contributors to poor HRQoL perception among urban older residents [40,43,46,68].
Some conceptual frameworks have emphasised the influence of sociodemographic, clinical, and psychosocial factors on HRQoL [69]. However, the influence of variables from different domains on HRQoL seems to be more related to lifestyle and life course than perceived HRQoL. In turn, these two dimensions appear to be influenced by health status, socioeconomic status, and education levels in different studies [30,43,46,68]. Therefore, it is expected that the lifestyle adopted by the rural older adults in our study, associated with their autonomy to perform daily tasks (as noticed in the physical-functional fitness test) and environmental factors, may have influenced our results.

5.2. Physical Health Status in Rural and Urban Environments

Physical-functional fitness and PA levels are two valid indicators that are highly correlated with physical functioning, and are predictors of autonomy, morbidity, and mortality in older adults [24]. In the present study, the results demonstrated that older individuals from rural areas have higher levels of functional fitness than urban residents. The high physical-functional fitness scores presented by rural residents may be related to the type of daily life activities performed by Portuguese rural residents living in the Inland region of Portugal. Some of these daily tasks require muscle strength and resistance from upper and lower limbs, such as taking care of small farms, and feeding and caring for animals. In accordance with our study, older adults living in Turkish rural areas were more successful at performing physical fitness tests than urban residents [44].
On the other hand, the results of a study conducted in Malaysia, Japan and United States showed that older urban residents had a higher physical-functional fitness status than rural residents [70,71,72]. These differences cannot be explained by the types of tests, since both cited studies present tests very similar to those used in our study. Some of the reasons that may explain the reported differences include the fact that the functional-fitness status of the rural dwellers, especially in developing countries, may be affected by poor access to health care, or the higher levels of physical inactivity in rural areas when compared to metropolitan areas [7,69].
Contrary to what was initially hypothesised, the living environment did not affect the PA levels in our study. Similar results were observed in a study conducted in Turkey [44]. Despite the differences in physical fitness, no significant differences were observed regarding PA levels [44]. On the other hand, an Icelandic study showed that PA levels related to work and daily life tasks were higher in rural residents, whereas PA levels related to leisure were greater in urban dwellers, but no statistical differences were observed between groups [73]. A population-based study conducted in Poland described higher PA levels in urban residents compared to rural residents [33]. In addition, a systematic review of the studies developed in China concluded that the total amount of PA practised by urban residents was relatively low, whereas rural residents presented lower levels of PA, primarily in leisure time [74].
Studies involving the PA assessment in older populations are often controversial [75]. Although there are advantages to self-reported measures (i.e., lower costs and shorter assessment time), there are many challenges regarding the accuracy of the measurements [76]. Some surveys, even after going through validation processes, do not have enough sensitivity to appropriately appraise what is proposed [75], and this fact may explain the results of our study. For example, the study carried out in Poland used a survey that assesses PA related to leisure time activities and motivations, types, exercise, and companions [33]. The Turkey study employed a questionnaire based on the intensity of specific activities, which can be expressed in metabolic equivalents (METs) to estimate energy expenditure in these activities [42]. The researchers of the Iceland study used a brief questionnaire that assessed PA during the past week [71]. In the Canadian Human Activity Pattern Survey, the authors used a more sensitive survey to measure the specific physical outdoor activities carried out in rural areas [32]. In our study, the results revealed that the seniors living in rural areas had higher PA levels compared to urban residents.
Another factor that may have influenced our research results is the low levels of literacy of the participants. Health literacy is considered important in preventing sedentary behaviour and an early deterioration of physical function in older populations [77]. A study recently conducted by our group in Portugal showed that health literacy impacts physical activity levels [78].

5.3. Associations between HRQoL, Physical Activity, and Physical-Functional Fitness

Several studies have explored the correlations between HRQoL and indicators of physical health status, providing evidence that physical function parameters, such as PA levels [13,16,17,45] and physical-functional fitness [10,13,16], significantly contribute to older adults’ perceived HRQoL. Considering that muscle strength, gait speed, balance, and lower limb high performance are critical prerequisites for the ability to perform daily living activities independently and prevent falls, it is clear that HRQoL and physical function are strongly linked [10,16,39,46,79].
Our study focused on physical health variables, taking into account the psychobiological paradigm that an active lifestyle and a good functional fitness status influence HRQoL in older populations [64]. As far as we know, this is the first study to look at the correlations between HRQoL, PA levels, and functional-physical fitness status in Portuguese older adults. Our results suggest that functional fitness status is associated with HRQoL, which is in accordance with several of the aforementioned studies. Levels of PA were significantly correlated with the PCS sub-dimension, but did not influence the regression model results. Regardless of these findings, we observed that the inclusion of covariates, such as sociodemographic, clinical health, and anthropometric, influenced the estimated regression model, boosting the explanatory power of physical function variables in the HRQoL and their subdomains.
However, few studies considered the impact of the residential area on the associations between HRQoL and physical health parameters. In a previous study conducted in Poland, a robust correlation between HRQoL and physical-fitness parameters was reported [10]. On the other hand, the authors only analysed the data considering sex differences and did not use covariates in the regression model. In pre-frail and frail older adults, the results of a study conducted in Austria showed that relatively regular PA and high scores in HGT can help older women prevent a decline in HRQoL [17]. Similar to our study, the authors introduced a regression model adjusted for sex and age.
Another study conducted in Brazil [43] reported a moderate correlation between PA levels and HRQoL (physical and mental components). A positive correlation between the PA and HRQoL was found in rural residents. In this study, other aspects, including social interaction, contributed to the perception of a better HRQoL. Recently, a study performed in China revealed that the presence of one or more clinical conditions leading to metabolic diseases was associated with poor HRQoL perception [79]. However, when individuals have good levels of physical activity, the perception of quality of life increases, even with the presence of diseases.
Overall, and in accordance with other studies [43,79], our study presented evidence that physical function is correlated with HRQoL, and that the introduction of some co-variables increased the power of the predicted model. These results are in agreement with previous studies that indicate that related chronic diseases [79], sex [10], age, and education levels [14] may influence HRQoL perception. Moreover, such influence seems to increase with age.

6. Limitations and Future Directions

Our work has some limitations. Firstly, this study used a cross-sectional design, which does not allow a causal association. Secondly, since PA and HRQoL were assessed through questionnaires, inaccurate estimation of the PA and HRQoL, and recall bias can be expected. In future research, a more appropriate scale for the assessment of everyday life activities of older people living in rural locations should be adopted. The results of this study cannot be generalised, but indicate that the inclusion of place of residence should be considered as an important factor when analysing the impact of physical health status on HRQoL. Furthermore, longitudinal and randomised controlled trial designs should be performed in the future to garner a deeper understanding of the correlations between physical functioning and HRQoL. The results reported in the current investigation will support the (re)formulation of guidelines that may assist politicians in the development and implementation of strategies to increase physical performance levels, quality of life, and well-being of older adults living in both urban and rural areas. These strategies should include: (i) decentralising and adapting PA programmes according to the needs of the country’s different geographical areas; (ii) creating attractive and innovative PA programmes beyond the “traditional” exercise group fitness class models; (iii) following the biosocial methodological approach in PA intervention programs seeking older adults’ socialisation; (iv) prioritising combined health intervention programmes, aiming at increasing PA, physical-fitness levels, and health literacy for active ageing.

7. Conclusions

In this study, the rural residents presented higher HRQoL and functional fitness scores than older adults living in urban areas. The SPPB and handgrip scores influenced the HRQoL overall scores and mental and physical components of rural and urban residents. In contrast, PA levels (measured through the YPAS-p questionnaire) demonstrated a minor influence on the HRQoL overall score. Moreover, the strength of this influence was mediated by covariates such as sociodemographic, anthropometric, and clinical health status variables.

Author Contributions

C.V.-C., N.S., E.M., C.V., G.E.F. and A.B. participated in the conceptualization and design of the study; C.V.-C. was also responsible for conducting the data collection; C.V., C.V.-C., E.M. and N.S. collected the data; G.E.F., A.B., A.R.C.-B. and C.V.-C. conducted the formal analysis; G.E.F., C.V., E.M., A.B., A.R.C.-B., N.S. and C.V.-C. were involved in interpreting the data and drafting the manuscript. All the authors reviewed the final version of the manuscript for intellectual content. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by PORTUGAL 2020 and by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT, SAICT-POL/23811/2016). Bovolini, Brito, and Furtado are part of Project Highly Qualified Human Resources (CENTRO-04-3559-FSE-000162), financed by the Operational Programme budget of the Central Region through the European Social Fund (ESF) complement.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethics Committee of the Local Health Unit of Guarda (no 11136).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy restrictions.

Acknowledgments

The researchers are grateful to ULS, CMG, and local associations for supporting the Gmove+ project. We also thank all participants for their commitment to this research project.

Conflicts of Interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Salomon, J.A.; Wang, H.; Freeman, M.K.; Vos, T.; Flaxman, A.D.; Lopez, A.D.; Murray, C.J.L. Healthy Life Expectancy for 187 Countries, 1990–2010: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012, 380, 2144–2162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gandek, B.; Ware, J.E.; Aaronson, N.K.; Apolone, G.; Bjorner, J.B.; Brazier, J.E.; Bullinger, M.; Kaasa, S.; Leplege, A.; Prieto, L.; et al. Cross-Validation of Item Selection and Scoring for the SF-12 Health Survey in Nine Countries: Results from the IQOLA Project. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1998, 51, 1171–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Halvorsrud, L.; Kalfoss, M. The Conceptualization and Measurement of Quality of Life in Older Adults: A Review of Empirical Studies Published during 1994–2006. Eur. J. Ageing 2007, 4, 229–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Phyo, A.Z.Z.; Ryan, J.; Gonzalez-Chica, D.A.; Stocks, N.P.; Reid, C.M.; Tonkin, A.M.; Woods, R.L.; Nelson, M.R.; Murray, A.M.; Gasevic, D.; et al. Health-Related Quality of Life and Incident Cardiovascular Disease Events in Community-Dwelling Older People: A Prospective Cohort Study. Int. J. Cardiol. 2021, 339, 170–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zaw, A.; Phyo, Z.; Ryan, J.; Gonzalez-Chica, D.A.; Woods, R.L.; Reid, C.M.; Nelson, M.R.; Murray, A.M.; Gasevic, D.; Nigel, P. Health-related quality of life and all-cause mortality among older healthy individuals in Australia and the United States: A prospective cohort. Qual. Life Res. 2021, 30, 1037–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Provencher, V.; Sirois, M.J.; Émond, M.; Perry, J.J.; Daoust, R.; Lee, J.S.; Griffith, L.E.; Batomen Kuimi, B.L.; Despeignes, L.R.; Wilding, L.; et al. Frail Older Adults with Minor Fractures Show Lower Health-Related Quality of Life (SF-12) Scores up to Six Months Following Emergency Department Discharge. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2016, 14, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Ferrer, A.; Formiga, F.; Cunillera, O.; Megido, M.J.; Corbella, X.; Almeda, J.; Octabaix Study Group. Predicting Factors of Health-Related Quality of Life in Octogenarians: A 3-Year Follow-up Longitudinal Study. Qual. Life Res. 2015, 24, 2701–2711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Milanovic, Z.; Pantelic, S.; Trajkovic, N.; Sporis, G.; Kostic, R.; James, N. Age-Related Decrease in Physical Activity and Functional Fitness among Elderly Men and Women. Clin. Interv. Aging 2013, 549–556, Erratum Appears in Clin. Interv. Aging. 2014, 9, 979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Ruiz-Montero, P.J.; Chiva-Bartoll, Ó. Evolution of the Ageing Process, Quality of Life and Physical Fitness in Western Countries. J. Phys. Educ. Sport 2017, 17, 97–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lepsy, E.; Radwańska, E.; Żurek, G.; Żurek, A.; Kaczorowska, A.; Radajewska, A.; Kołcz, A. Association of Physical Fitness with Quality of Life in Community-Dwelling Older Adults Aged 80 and over in Poland: A Cross-Sectional Study. BMC Geriatr. 2021, 21, 491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Caspersen, C.J.; Powell, K.E.; Christenson, G.M. Physical Activity, Exercise, and Physical Fitness: Definitions and Distinctions for Health-Related Research. Public Health Rep. 1985, 100, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  12. Thivel, D.; Tremblay, A.; Genin, P.M.; Panahi, S.; Rivière, D.; Duclos, M. Physical Activity, Inactivity, and Sedentary Behaviors: Definitions and Implications in Occupational Health. Front. Public Health 2018, 6, 288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Lin, Y.T.; Chen, M.C.; Ho, C.C.; Lee, T.S. Relationships among Leisure Physical Activity, Sedentary Lifestyle, Physical Fitness, and Happiness in Adults 65 Years or Older in Taiwan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Anokye, N.K.; Trueman, P.; Green, C.; Pavey, T.G.; Taylor, R.S. Physical Activity and Health Related Quality of Life. BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Elavsky, S.; McAuley, E.; Motl, R.W.; Konopack, J.F.; Marquez, D.X.; Hu, L.; Jerome, G.J.; Diener, E. Physical Activity Enhances Long-Term Quality of Life in Older Adults: Efficacy, Esteem, and Affective Influences. Ann. Behav. Med. 2005, 30, 138–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Haider, S.; Luger, E.; Kapan, A.; Titze, S.; Lackinger, C.; Schindler, K.E.; Dorner, T.E. Associations between Daily Physical Activity, Handgrip Strength, Muscle Mass, Physical Performance and Quality of Life in Prefrail and Frail Community-Dwelling Older Adults. Qual. Life Res. 2016, 25, 3129–3138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Choi, M.; Prieto-Merino, D.; Dale, C.; Nüesch, E.; Amuzu, A.; Bowling, A.; Ebrahim, S.; Casas, J.P. Effect of Changes in Moderate or Vigorous Physical Activity on Changes in Health-Related Quality of Life of Elderly British Women over Seven Years. Qual. Life Res. 2013, 22, 2011–2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tolea, M.I.; Galvin, J.E. Sarcopenia and Impairment in Cognitive and Physical Performance. Clin. Interv. Aging 2015, 10, 663–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Cruz-Jentoft, A.J.; Baeyens, J.P.; Bauer, J.M.; Boirie, Y.; Cederholm, T.; Landi, F.; Martin, F.C.; Michel, J.-P.; Rolland, Y.; Schneider, S.M.; et al. Sarcopenia: European Consensus on Definition and Diagnosis: Report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Age Ageing 2010, 39, 412–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Sasaki, H.; Kasagi, F.; Yamada, M.; Fujita, S. Grip Strength Predicts Cause-Specific Mortality in Middle-Aged and Elderly Persons. Am. J. Med. 2007, 120, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mitchell, W.K.; Williams, J.; Atherton, P.; Larvin, M.; Lund, J.; Narici, M. Sarcopenia, Dynapenia, and the Impact of Advancing Age on Human Skeletal Muscle Size and Strength; a Quantitative Review. Front. Physiol. 2012, 3, 260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Albert, S.M.; King, J.; Boudreau, R.; Prasad, T.; Lin, C.J.; Newman, A.B. Primary Prevention of Falls: Effectiveness of a Statewide Program. Am. J. Public Health 2014, 104, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. McPhee, J.S.; French, D.P.; Jackson, D.; Nazroo, J.; Pendleton, N.; Degens, H. Physical Activity in Older Age: Perspectives for Healthy Ageing and Frailty. Biogerontology 2016, 17, 567–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kimura, M.; Mizuta, C.; Yamada, Y.; Okayama, Y.; Nakamura, E. Constructing an Index of Physical Fitness Age for Japanese Elderly Based on 7-Year Longitudinal Data: Sex Differences in Estimated Physical Fitness Age. Age 2012, 34, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Trost, S.G.; Owen, N.; Bauman, A.E.; Sallis, J.F.; Brown, W. Correlates of Adults’ Participation in Physical Activity: Review and Update. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2002, 34, 1996–2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pereira, C.; Baptista, F.; Cruz-Ferreira, A. Role of Physical Activity, Physical Fitness, and Chronic Health Conditions on the Physical Independence of Community-Dwelling Older Adults over a 5-Year Period. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2016, 65, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Diamond, A.; Visser, M.; Brychta, R.J.; Chen, K.Y.; Koster, A. Self-Reported Adherence to the Physical Activity Recommendation and Determinants of Misperception in Older Adults. J. Aging Phys. Act. 2014, 22, 226–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Wickramarachchi, B.I.; Siop, S.J.; Perera, B. Personal Determinants for Physical Activity Behavior of Urban-Dwelling Older Adults in Sri Lanka. Gerontol. Geriatr. Med. 2021, 7, 2–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gomes, M.; Figueiredo, D.; Teixeira, L.; Poveda, V.; Paúl, C.; Santos-Silva, A.; Costa, E. Physical Inactivity among Older Adults across Europe Based on the SHARE Database. Age Ageing 2017, 46, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Martins, J.; Marques, A.; Teixeira, P.J.; Mota, J.; Lopes, C.; Nicola, P.J. Socio-Demographic Factors Associated with Physical Activity and Sitting Time Patterns in Adults: An Analysis Based on the Portuguese Food, Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2021, 21, 250–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Henchoz, Y.; Botrugno, F.; Cornaz, S.; Büla, C.; Charef, S.; Santos-Eggimann, B.; On behalf of the Research Group on the quality of life of older people in cantons of Vaud; Guessous, I. Determinants of Quality of Life in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Comparing Three Cut-Offs on the Excellent-to-Poor Spectrum. Qual. Life Res. 2017, 26, 283–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Liu, Y.; Ingviya, T.; Sangthong, R.; Wan, C. Subjective Well-Being and Quality of Life of Rural-to-Urban Migrant and Local Older Adults in Dongguan, China. Soc. Behav. Pers. 2021, 49, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Koeneman, M.A.; Verheijden, M.W.; Chinapaw, M.J.M.; Hopman-Rock, M. Determinants of Physical Activity and Exercise in Healthy Older Adults: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2011, 8, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Matz, C.J.; Stieb, D.M.; Brion, O. Urban-Rural Differences in Daily Time-Activity Patterns, Occupational Activity and Housing Characteristics. Environ. Health 2015, 14, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Omelan, A.; Podstawski, R.; Wziatek, B.; Merino-Marbán, R.; Romero-Ramos, O. Physical Activity Levels of Rural and Urban Seniors in the Region of Warmia and Mazury in Poland. Balt. J. Health Phys. Act. 2017, 2017, 74–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mabweazara, Z.S.; Leach, L.L.; Smith, M.; Tsolekile, L.; Puoane, T. Ellisras Longitudinal Study 2017: Patterns of Physical Activity in an Urban and Rural Setting among Black South African Adults (ELS 23). Cardiovasc. J. Afr. 2019, 30, 262–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cohen, S.A.; Ahmed, N.; Brown, M.J.; Meucci, M.R.; Greaney, M.L. Rural-Urban Differences in Informal Caregiving and Health-Related Quality of Life. J. Rural Health 2021, 38, 442–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dahlberg, L.; McKee, K.J. Social Exclusion and Well-Being among Older Adults in Rural and Urban Areas. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2018, 79, 176–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hou, Y.; Wu, Q.; Zhang, D.; Jin, X.; Wu, W.; Wang, X. The Differences in Self-Perceptions of Aging, Health-Related Quality of Life and Their Association between Urban and Rural Chinese Older Hypertensive Patients. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2020, 18, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dos Santos Tavares, D.M.; Fernandes Bolina, A.; Aparecida Dias, F.; Dos Santos Ferreira, P.C.; José Haas, V. Quality of Life of Elderly. Comparison between Urban and Rural Areas. Investig. Educ. Enfermería 2014, 32, 401–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Science Publishers, B. ERRATUM—Quality of Life and Urban / Rural Living: Preliminary Results of a Community Survey in Italy. Clin. Pract. Epidemiol. Ment. Health 2013, 9, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Araújo, J.; Ramos, E.; Lopes, C. Estilos de Vida e Percepção Do Estado de Saúde Em Idosos Portugueses de Zonas Rural e Urbana. Acta Med. Port. 2011, 24, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  43. Urošević, J.; Odović, G.; Rapaić, D.; Davidović, M.; Trgovčević, S.; Milovanović, V. Quality of Life of the Elderly in Urban and Rural Areas in Serbia. Vojnosanit. Pregl. 2015, 72, 968–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Arslan, T.; Kara, B.; Arslan, S. Comparison of Physical Activity Levels of Elderly People Living in Rural and Urban Areas of Turkey. Turkish J. Sport. Med. 2018, 53, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Barbosa, A.P.; Teixeira, T.G.; Orlandi, B.; De Oliveira, N.T.B.; Concone, M.H.V.B. Level of Physical Activity and Quality of Life: A Comparative Study among the Elderly of Rural and Urban Areas. Rev. Bras. Geriatr. Gerontol. 2015, 18, 743–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Sewo Sampaio, P.Y.; Ito, E.; Carvalho Sampaio, R.A. The Association of Activity and Participation with Quality of Life between Japanese Older Adults Living in Rural and Urban Areas. J. Clin. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2013, 4, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Petrini, C. Helsinki 50 Years On. Clin. Ter. 2014, 165, 179–181. [Google Scholar]
  48. Chantakeeree, C.; Sormunen, M.; Estola, M.; Jullamate, P.; Turunen, H. Factors Affecting Quality of Life among Older Adults with Hypertension in Urban and Rural Areas in Thailand: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gobbens, R.J.J.; Remmen, R. The Effects of Sociodemographic Factors on Quality of Life among People Aged 50 Years or Older Are Not Unequivocal: Comparing SF-12, WHOQOL-BREF, and WHOQOL-OLD. Clin. Interv. Aging 2019, 14, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Ferreira, P.L. Creation of Portuguese Version of the MOS SF-36 Part I, Cultural and Linguistic Adaptation. Acta Med. Port. 2000, 13, 55–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Brazier, J.E.; Harper, R.; Jones, N.M.B.; O’Cathain, A.; Thomas, K.J.; Usherwood, T.; Westlake, L. Validating the SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire: New Outcome Measure for Primary Care. Br. Med. J. 1992, 305, 160–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Pan, Y.; Barnhart, H.X. Methods for Assessing the Reliability of Quality of Life Based on SF-36. Stat. Med. 2016, 35, 5656–5665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Lins, L.; Carvalho, F.M. SF-36 Total Score as a Single Measure of Health-Related Quality of Life: Scoping Review. SAGE Open Med. 2016, 4, 205031211667172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Ferreira, P.L.; Noronha Ferreira, L.; Nobre Pereira, L. Medidas Sumário Física e Mental de Estado de Saúde Para a População Portuguesa. Rev. Port. Saude Publica 2012, 30, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Tavares, F.M.; Carnide, F.; Veloso, A.P. Tradução e Adequação Cultural Do Yale Physical Activity Survey Para a Língua Portuguesa. 2001. Available online: https://www.repository.utl.pt/handle/10400.5/4215 (accessed on 7 April 2022).
  56. De Abajo, S.; Larriba, R.; Marquez, S. Validity and Reliability of the Yale Physical Activity Survey in Spanish Elderly. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 2001, 41, 479–485. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  57. Machado, M. Validation of YPAS-PT—The Yale Physical Activity Survey for Portuguese Older People. Sci. J. Public Health 2016, 4, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Guralnik, J.M.; Simonsick, E.M.; Ferrucci, L.; Glynn, R.J.; Berkman, L.F.; Blazer, D.G.; Scherr, P.A.; Wallace, R.B. A Short Physical Performance Battery Assessing Lower Extremity Function: Association with Self-Reported Disability and Prediction of Mortality and Nursing Home Admission. J. Gerontol. 1994, 49, M85–M94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Da Câmara, S.M.A.; Alvarado, B.E.; Guralnik, J.M.; Guerra, R.O.; Maciel, A.C.C. Using the Short Physical Performance Battery to Screen for Frailty in Young-Old Adults with Distinct Socioeconomic Conditions. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 2013, 13, 421–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Fernandes, D. A Avaliação Das Aprendizagens No Sistema Educativo Português. Educ. Pesqui. 2007, 33, 581–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Ferreira, F.; Seixas, P.C. Portugal 2020 and the New Glossary of Territorial Development: Territorialization or Neo-Institutionalization? urbe. Rev. Bras. Gestão Urbana 2017, 9, 487–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Charlson, M.E.; Szatrowski, T.P.; Peterson, J.; Gold, J.; Charlson, M.E.; Szatrowski, T.P.; Peterson, J.; Gold, J.; Szatrowsli, T.P. Validation of a Combined Comorbidity Index. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1994, 47, 1245–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Quan, H.; Li, B.; Couris, C.M.; Fushimi, K.; Graham, P.; Hider, P.; Januel, J.-M.; Sundararajan, V. Updating and Validating the Charlson Comorbidity Index and Score for Risk Adjustment in Hospital Discharge Abstracts Using Data from 6 Countries. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2011, 173, 676–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Lu, W.; Pikhart, H.; Sacker, A. Domains and Measurements of Healthy Aging in Epidemiological Studies: A Review. Gerontologist 2019, 59, e294–e310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lohman, T.J.G.; Roache, A.F.; Martorell, R.; Roche, A.F.; Martorell, R. Anthropometric Standardization Reference Manual; Human Kinetics Books: Champaign, IL, USA, 1992; Volume 24, ISBN 0873221214. [Google Scholar]
  66. Hopkins, W.G.; Marshall, S.W.; Batterham, A.M.; Hanin, J. Progressive Statistics for Studies in Sports Medicine and Exercise Science. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2009, 41, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Azul, A.M.; Almendra, R.; Quatorze, M.; Loureiro, A.; Reis, F.; Tavares, R.; Mota-Pinto, A.; Cunha, A.; Rama, L.; Malva, J.O.; et al. Unhealthy Lifestyles, Environment, Well-Being and Health Capability in Rural Neighbourhoods: A Community-Based Cross-Sectional Study. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Burnette, D.; Ye, X.; Cheng, Z.; Ruan, H. Living Alone, Social Cohesion, and Quality of Life among Older Adults in Rural and Urban China: A Conditional Process Analysis. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2021, 33, 469–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Linda, J.W.; Christine, B.; Behrman, J.; Jason, H.B.; Donalson, P.; Kathleen Mullan, H. New Directions in the Sociology of Aging. Panel on New Directions in Social Demography, Social Epidemiology, and the Sociology of Aging; Waite, L.J., Plewes, T.J., Eds.; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2013; ISBN 9780309292979. [Google Scholar]
  70. Shahar, S.; Vanoh, D.; Mat Ludin, A.F.; Singh, D.K.A.; Hamid, T.A. Factors Associated with Poor Socioeconomic Status among Malaysian Older Adults: An Analysis According to Urban and Rural Settings. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Morala, D.T.; Shiomi, T.; Maruyama, H. Factors Associated with the Functional Status of Community-Dwelling Elderly. J. Geriatr. Phys. Ther. 2006, 29, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Wilcox, S.; Castro, C.; King, A.C.; Housemann, R.; Brownson, R.C. Determinants of Leisure Time Physical Activity in Rural Compared with Urban Older and Ethnically Diverse Women in the United States. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2000, 54, 667–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Arnadottir, S.A.; Lundin-Olsson, L.; Gunnarsdottir, E.D. Are Rural Older Icelanders Less Physically Active than Those Living in Urban Areas? A Population-Based Study. Scand. J. Public Health 2009, 37, 409–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zhu, W.; Chi, A.; Sun, Y. Physical Activity among Older Chinese Adults Living in Urban and Rural Areas: A Review. J. Sport Health Sci. 2016, 5, 281–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Schrack, J.A.; Cooper, R.; Koster, A.; Shiroma, E.J.; Murabito, J.M.; Rejeski, W.J.; Ferrucci, L.; Harris, T.B. Assessing Daily Physical Activity in Older Adults: Unraveling the Complexity of Monitors, Measures, and Methods. J. Gerontol.-Ser. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2016, 71, 1039–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Kruskall, L.J.; Campbell, W.W.; Evans, W.J. The Yale Physical Activity Survey for Older Adults: Predictions in the Energy Expenditure Due to Physical Activity. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2004, 104, 1251–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Uemura, K.; Yamada, M.; Okamoto, H. Effects of Active Learning on Health Literacy and Behavior in Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2018, 66, 1721–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Vaz, C.; Serra, N.; Marques, E.; Corte, A.; Vila-Chã, C. Perceived Barriers and Physical Activity Levels in Older Adults: The Role of Education. In Proceedings of the International Seminar of Physical Education, Leisure and Health, Castelo Branco, Portugal, 17–19 June 2019; Volume 14, pp. 1578–1580. [Google Scholar]
  79. Xu, H.; Tang, L.; Hu, Z.; Gao, F.; Yang, Y.; Qin, L.; Luo, B.A. Association between Physical Activity and Health-Related Quality of Life in Elderly Individuals with Pre-Diabetes in Rural Hunan Province, China: A Cross-Sectional Study. BMJ Open 2018, 8, e019836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. Characterization of the sociodemographic, anthropometric, and clinical health parameters of the older adults living in urban and rural areas.
Table 1. Characterization of the sociodemographic, anthropometric, and clinical health parameters of the older adults living in urban and rural areas.
Total Sample
(n = 259, 100%)		Urban
(n = 139, 54%)		Rural
(n = 120, 46%)		p
Value		Cohen’s d
ES
Sociodemographic
Chronological age, years (M ± SD)74.99 ± 8.0875.95 ± 7.5973.87 ± 510.0200.31
Sex, n (%) *
     Male104 (40)47 (34)57 (47)<0.001--
     Female 155 (60)92 (66)63 (53)0.580
Education, national degree, n (%) *
     <4th Grade50 (20)9 (7)41 (34)<0.001
     =4th Grade136 (52)70 (50)66 (55)--
     >4th Grade73 (28)60 (43)13 (11)
Income (n/%) *
     Low112 (43)64 (46)48 (40)<0.001
     Medium43 (17)24 (17)19 (15)--
     High104 (40)51 (36)53 (45)
Living arrangement, n (%) *
     Partner152 (58)95 (68)57(48)<0.001--
     Alone107 (42)44 (32)63 (52)0.050
Anthropometric (M ± SD)
Weight (Kg) 74.39 ± 0.7164.43 ± 11.2474.38 ± 10.770.090.17
Height (metres)1.59 ± 0.641.58 ± 0.901.60 ± 0.990.460.09
Body mass index (kg/m2)26.85 ± 3.8527.11 ± 3.8926.55 ± 3.790.120.15
Clinical Health status (M ± SD)
Comorbidities, index4.06 ± 1.354.77 ± 1.333.40 ± 1.340.0120.15
Medication use, per day2.78 ± 1.343.80 ± 1.502.70 ± 1.160.0050.02
Self-reported health status, n (%) *
     Negative41 (16)7 (5)34 (29)<0.001--
     Positive 218 (84)132 (95)86 (71)
Notes: * Chi-squared test was computed to compare urban vs. rural subgroups; M ± SD = mean and standard deviation; n (%) = frequency and percentage; ES = effect size.
Table
Table 2. Characterization of health-related quality of life physical activity levels and physical-functional fitness status according to the living place of the participants.
Table 2. Characterization of health-related quality of life physical activity levels and physical-functional fitness status according to the living place of the participants.
Total Sample
(n = 259, 100%)		Urban
(n = 139, 54%)		Rural
(n = 120, 46%)		p
Value		Cohen’s d ES
Health-related quality of life by SF-36 (M ± SD)
Physical functioning68.21 ± 28.2164.10 ± 28.2772.97 ± 27.500.0000.32
Physical health65.51 ± 28.2462.27 ± 29.4569.27 ± 26.390.0220.32
Bodily pain64.07 ± 30.1861.12 ± 29.9267.49 ± 30.250.0500.25
General health56.36 ± 18.8855.71 ± 19.4057.10 ± 18.320.2810.08
Vitality63.70 ± 18.3662.05 ± 18.3065.62 ± 18.330.0500.20
Social functioning75.33 ± 22.5372.03 ± 22.6779.16 ± 20.740.0170.32
Emotional health70.20 ± 27.9467.50 ± 29.2373.33 ± 16.140.0500.21
Mental health65.40 ± 20.4064.06 ± 21.7266.95 ± 19.210.1330.14
Changes in health status52.12 ± 19.8152.87 ± 21.7151.25 ±17.400.2520.08
Physical component summary49.01 ± 10.3948.86 ± 10.2051.31 ± 10.500.0310.24
Mental component summary50.09 ± 9.5749.12 ± 10.1451.01 ± 8.790.0500.20
SF-36 overall score48.07 ± 7.7048.99 ± 7.7851.16 ± 7.480.0120.28
Levels of Physical Activity by YPAS-p (M ± SD)
Vigorous index (units/month)8.94 ± 14.858.69 ± 7.339.24 ± 5.480.3810.03
Leisure walk index (units/month)13.65 ± 10.4913.72 ± 9.6213.56 ± 8.380.4620.01
Moving index (hours/day)9.00 ± 3.438.91 ± 3.349.10 ± 3.540.3320.05
Standing index (hours/day)6.14 ± 2.166.08 ± 2.026.22 ± 2.330.3140.06
Sitting index (hours/day)2.19 ± 0.882.25 ± 0.902.13 ± 0.840.1430.13
Summary index (total units)36.26 ± 25.8335.01 ± 27.5937.31 ± 14.650.2010.10
Functional-physical fitness (M ± SD)
SPPB overall score9.86 ± 1.939.69 ± 1.9511.07 ± 1.900.0500.20
Handgrip strength test (kg)26.08 ± 8.9325.03 ± 8.1127.31 ± 9.680.0190.26
Notes: M ± SD = mean and standard deviation; ES = effect size; SPPB = short physical performance battery; YAPS-p = Portuguese version of Yale physical activity survey; SF-36 = Short Form Health Survey.
Table
Table 3. Spearman’s correlations between physical-functional tests and health-related quality of life according to the living place.
Table 3. Spearman’s correlations between physical-functional tests and health-related quality of life according to the living place.
PCSMCSHRQoL Overall Score
Urban (n = 139)
YPAS-p summary index0.150.150.19 *
SPBB total score0.44 **0.35 *0.52 **
Handgrip strength test0.36 **0.28 *0.36 **
Rural (n = 120)
YPAS-p index0.22 *0.070.20 *
SPBB total score0.30 **0.27 **0.31 **
Handgrip test0.43 **0.38 **0.52 **
Notes: * p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; YPAS-p = Portuguese version of Yale physical activity scale; SPPB = short physical fitness test battery; PCS = physical component summary; MCS = mental component summary; HrQoL = health-related quality of life.
Table
Table 4. Regression models for physical-functional fitness tests (SPPB and HGT) and physical activity levels (YPAS-p indexes) predicting health-related quality of life of older participants living in urban areas (n = 139).
Table 4. Regression models for physical-functional fitness tests (SPPB and HGT) and physical activity levels (YPAS-p indexes) predicting health-related quality of life of older participants living in urban areas (n = 139).
PCSMCSHRQoL Overall Score
R2βpR2βpR2βp
YPAS-p summary index
Model 10.020.940.2710.020.150.8300.130.160.633
Model 20.150.330.2820.230.630.4910.180.040.050
SPPB total score
Model 10.192.31<0.0010.120.33<0.0010.260.51<0.001
Model 20.231.76<0.0010.141.97<0.0010.281.87<0.001
Handgrip strength test
Model 10.120.45<0.0010.020.180.0360.120.36<0.001
Model 20.180.340.0220.140.600.0010.210.45<0.001
Notes: Model 1 included one dependent and one independent variable; Model 2 included the adjustment for sociodemographic (sex, education, income, and living arrangement) and clinical health status (comorbidities, medication use, and self-rated health); YPAS-p = Portuguese version of Yale Physical Activity Scale; SPPB = short physical fitness test battery; PCS = physical component summary; MCS = mental component summary; HrQoL = health-related quality of life.
Table
Table 5. Regression models for physical-functional fitness tests (SPPB and HGT) and physical activity levels (YPAS-p indexes) predicting health-related quality of life of older participants living in rural areas (n = 120).
Table 5. Regression models for physical-functional fitness tests (SPPB and HGT) and physical activity levels (YPAS-p indexes) predicting health-related quality of life of older participants living in rural areas (n = 120).
PCSMCSHRQoL
R2βpR2βpR2βp
YPAS-p summary index
Model 10.040.220.0210.000.740.4210.030.190.032
Model 20.190.540.1630.15−0.100.7640.280.050.000
SPPB overall score
Model 10.172.32<0.0010.100.31<0.0010.220.48<0.001
Model 20.251.65<0.0010.190.090.770.361.31<0.001
Handgrip strength test
Model 10.170.46<0.0010.140.37<0.0010.260.51<0.001
Model 20.220.380.0020.170.200.1050.340.300.000
Notes: Model 1 included one dependent and one independent variable; Model 2 included the adjustment for sociodemographic (sex, education, income, and living arrangement) and clinical health status (comorbidities, medication use, and self-rated health); YPAS-p = Portuguese version of Yale physical activity scale; SPPB = short physical fitness test battery; PCS = physical component summary; MCS = mental component summary; HrQoL = health-related quality of life.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Furtado, G.E.; Vaz, C.; Bovolini, A.; Marques, E.; Serra, N.; Costa-Brito, A.R.; Vila-Chã, C. The Impact of Physical Activity Levels and Functional Fitness Status on the Quality of Life Perceived by Older Adults Living in Rural and Urban Areas: The Portuguese Inland Case. Healthcare 2022, 10, 1266. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10071266

AMA Style

Furtado GE, Vaz C, Bovolini A, Marques E, Serra N, Costa-Brito AR, Vila-Chã C. The Impact of Physical Activity Levels and Functional Fitness Status on the Quality of Life Perceived by Older Adults Living in Rural and Urban Areas: The Portuguese Inland Case. Healthcare. 2022; 10(7):1266. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10071266

Chicago/Turabian Style

Furtado, Guilherme Eustáquio, Cláudia Vaz, Antonio Bovolini, Ermelinda Marques, Nuno Serra, Ana Raquel Costa-Brito, and Carolina Vila-Chã. 2022. "The Impact of Physical Activity Levels and Functional Fitness Status on the Quality of Life Perceived by Older Adults Living in Rural and Urban Areas: The Portuguese Inland Case" Healthcare 10, no. 7: 1266. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10071266

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop