Factors related to subjective evaluation of difficulty in chewing among community-dwelling older adults

3Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Aim: Awareness of difficulty chewing may limit the diversity of food intake in older adults. However, few studies have clarified which factors are related to subjective difficulty in chewing. The aim was to identify factors related to subjective difficulty in chewing in 70- and 80-year-old Japanese older adults. Methods: A total of 1680 participants (792 men, 888 women) were surveyed. Difficulty in chewing was assessed with questionnaires regarding food intake, such as rice, apples, beef, and hard rice crackers. The participants were classified into two groups, the “with difficulty” group (participants who answered “cannot eat,” “can eat with difficulty,” and “can eat if small”) and the “without difficulty” group (participants who answered “can eat without problems”), according to their answers to questionnaires for each food. A logistic regression analysis with subjective difficulty in chewing as the dependent variable was performed for each food. Results: Subjective difficulty in chewing was associated with age, occlusal force, and depression for rice; age, number of remaining teeth, occlusal force, and depression for apples; number of remaining teeth, occlusal force, and depression for beef; and number of remaining teeth and occlusal force for hard rice crackers. Conclusions: Age, number of remaining teeth, and occlusal force, as well as depression, might be related to subjective evaluation of difficulty chewing in community-dwelling Japanese older adults. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2024; 24: 327–333.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Seto, E., Kosaka, T., Hatta, K., Mameno, T., Mihara, Y., Fushida, S., … Ikebe, K. (2024). Factors related to subjective evaluation of difficulty in chewing among community-dwelling older adults. Geriatrics and Gerontology International, 24(S1), 327–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.14783

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free