Assessment of non-communicable disease risk factors, functional performance, and health-related quality of life in adults: a comparative analysis in low-resourced urban and rural areas of South Africa

Abstract

BackgroundGlobally, disparities between non-communicable disease (NCD) risk factors, functional performance, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) exist in people living in rural and low-resourced urban settings. Evidence of these health differences determined with objective NCD risk factors and functional performance measurements in South Africa, is scarce. Therefore, the study aimed to determine the differences in NCD risk factors, functional performance and HRQoL between rural and low-resourced urban areas.MethodsThe study recruited 311 adults (35–80 years) presenting with at least one NCD risk factor from low-resourced urban- (n = 183) and rural (n = 128) communities. Objective measurements of physical activity (PA) by means of combined heart rate and accelerometery, body composition employing skinfolds, peripheral lipid and glucose concentrations, blood pressure, functional performance indicators (handgrip, single leg stand, sit-to-stand, timed-up-and-go speed, predicted peak VO2 max); and HRQoL were measured according to standard procedures. Independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U, and chi-square tests were performed to determine differences between the variables of low-resourced urban and rural settings.ResultsThe participants from the low-resourced urban setting were significantly older than the rural residents (59.1 ± 10.7 years vs. 52.8 ± 11.3 years; p = 0.001). NCD risk factors were significantly more prevalent in the low-resourced urban participants compared to rural participants, in particular for elevated systolic (85.8% vs. 62.5%; p = 0.001), and diastolic blood pressure (88.5% vs. 65.6%; p = 0.001), physical inactivity (95.9% vs. 87.7%; p = 0.026), increased cholesterol concentrations (22.1% vs. 8.7%; p = 0.002), and increased waist circumference (61.9% vs. 49.2%; p = 0.027). Low-resourced urban residents presented with a higher average body fat percentage (27.69% ± 7.65% vs. 12.23% ± 4.67%; p < 0.001), and lower moderate to vigorous PA levels (37.19 ± 49.55 [95% CI = 29.12–45.27] vs. 62.92 ± 60.43 min/week [95% CI = 47.95–77.90]; p = 0.003) compared to rural residents. Rural residents showed significantly better functional performance, including peak VO2 (23.99 ± 9.89 vs. 16.95 ± 7.64 ml/min/kg; p = 0.001) and single leg stand (right leg: 44.96 ± 18.47 vs. 20.87 ± 19.18 s; p = 0.001) as well as higher HRQoL for the physical (51.06 ± 8.14% vs. 45.62 ± 11.13%; p < 0.001) and mental (54.75 ± 8.24% vs. 48.91 ± 12.27%; p < 0.001) component scores compared to participants from the low-resourced urban areas.ConclusionNCD risk factors, functional performance, and HRQoL significantly differ in rural communities compared to low-resourced urban communities in South Africa. Urban areas’ most prevalent risk factors were elevated blood pressure, physical inactivity, and increased waist circumference. Participants from rural areas demonstrated significantly better functional performance, such as fitness and balance. HRQoL was better in rural settings than in urban settings. Future intervention programmes should be tailored for specific settings.