| Literature DB >> 16857203 |
Sophia S C Chan1, Winnie K W So, David C N Wong, Angel C K Lee, Agnes Tiwari.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in Hong Kong posed many challenges for health promotion activities among a group of older adults with low socio-economic status (SES). With concerns that this vulnerable group could be at higher risk of contracting the disease or spreading it to others, the implementation of health promotion activities appropriate to this group was considered to be essential during the epidemic.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2006 PMID: 16857203 PMCID: PMC7094290 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.04.019
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Nurs Stud ISSN: 0020-7489 Impact factor: 5.837
Fig. 1Recruitment of older adults in the community.
Demographic characteristics (n=122)
| Characteristics | |
|---|---|
| Age (years old) | |
| 55–64 | 12 (10.3) |
| 65–74 | 49 (42.2) |
| 75 or above | 55 (47.4) |
| Gender | |
| Female | 75 (63.0) |
| Male | 44 (37.0) |
| Educational attainment | |
| No formal education | 58 (50.0) |
| Primary | 35 (30.2) |
| Secondary or above | 23 (19.8) |
| Marital status | |
| Single/divorced/widower | 77 (63.1) |
| Married | 38 (31.1) |
| Has children | 57 (49.6) |
| Living with family members | 48 (41.7) |
| Occupation | |
| Retired | 96 (82.8) |
| Unemployed/seeking job | 8 (6.9) |
| Housewife | 11 (9.5) |
| Employed | 1 (0.9) |
| Monthly personal income (HK$) | |
| No income | 88 (83.0) |
| <$1,000 | 18 (17.0) |
Note: Missing values: age=6, gender=3, education attainment=6, marital status=6, has children=7, and living with family members=7.US$1=HKS 7.8; UK£1=HK$ 13.0.
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) scores grouped by three levels of anxiety (N=122)
| Before intervention | After intervention | Paired sample | df | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M (SD) | M (SD) | ||||
| STAI scores | 35.56 (8.80) | 33.13 (7.09) | 3.28 | 118 | <0.001 |
| Low level of anxiety | 81 (66.4) | 90 (75.6) | NS | ||
| Medium level of anxiety | 36 (29.5) | 29 (24.4) | NS | ||
| High level of anxiety | 5 (4.1) | / | NA |
Note. Low level of anxiety=20–39; Medium level of anxiety=40–59; High level of anxiety=60–80 (Spielberger, 1983).
McNemar test was informed and no significant changes were found in all levels of anxiety.
p<0.001; NS=not significant; NA=not applicable.
Knowledge of main transmission routes of SARS before and after intervention (N=122)
| Before intervention | After intervention ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Correct | Incorrect | ||
| Droplets | |||
| Correct | 62 | 4 | < 0.001*** |
| Incorrect | 28 | 19 | |
| Contact with urine and feces | |||
| Correct | 49 | 7 | < 0.01** |
| Incorrect | 22 | 35 | |
| Direct physical contact | |||
| Correct | 46 | 13 | NS |
| Incorrect | 23 | 28 | |
| Airborne | |||
| Correct | 16 | 10 | NS |
| Incorrect | 17 | 68 | |
| Animals | |||
| Correct | 12 | 10 | NS |
| Incorrect | 9 | 80 | |
Note:***p<0.001; **p<0.01; NS=not significant.
Preventive measures taken to prevent transmission of SARS (N=122)
| Preventive measures | Before/ after intervention | Mean | Median | SD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cover mouth when sneezing/coughing | Before | 118 | 1.30 | 1 | 0.46 | <0.001 |
| After | 114 | 1.90 | 2 | 1.05 | ||
| Wash hands after sneezing/coughing | Before | 118 | 1.26 | 1 | 0.44 | <0.001 |
| After | 115 | 1.65 | 1 | 0.89 | ||
| Wash hands with liquid soap | Before | 118 | 1.14 | 1 | 0.35 | <0.001 |
| After | 118 | 1.53 | 1 | 0.82 | ||
| Wash hands after contact with possible contaminated materials | Before | 116 | 1.76 | 1 | 1.08 | NS |
| After | 118 | 1.69 | 1 | 0.97 | ||
| Wear a face mask in public | Before | 118 | 1.31 | 1 | 0.46 | <0.001 |
| After | 118 | 2.15 | 2 | 1.12 | ||
| Use serving spoons/chopsticks at meals | Before | 108 | 3.09 | 4 | 1.21 | NS |
| After | 102 | 3.24 | 4 | 1.15 | ||
| Lower toilet lid before flushing | Before | 115 | 2.75 | 4 | 1.39 | NS |
| After | 117 | 2.55 | 3 | 1.38 | ||
| Avoid using serving towels | Before | 110 | 2.45 | 2 | 1.39 | <0.05* |
| After | 109 | 2.10 | 2 | 1.26 |
Note: Frequency of taking preventive measures were evaluated by a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (very often) to 4 (not at all).
p<0.001; *p<0.05; NS=not significant.