| Literature DB >> 19558702 |
Nanako Tamiya1, Li-Mei Chen, Yasuki Kobayashi, Mariko Kaneda, Eiji Yano.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prevention and reduction of disability among community-dwelling older adults have been an important health policy concern in Japan. Moreover, it has also become a gendered issue due to the recent rapid growth in older females than males with disability living in their own homes. The aim of this study is to examine whether there is a gender difference in the use of community rehabilitation programs in Japan, and if so, whether the lack of transportation services and accompanying caregivers are the reasons for the gender difference.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19558702 PMCID: PMC2716345 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2318-9-24
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Geriatr ISSN: 1471-2318 Impact factor: 3.921
Figure 1Number of long-term care insurance enrollees by levels of care, year 2007 (1,000 per unit).
Characteristics of community rehabilitation program (CRP) participants by gender (n = 1,129)
| 649 | 480 | |||
| Age | 67.2 ± 9.4 | 69.4 ± 10.8 | .0031) | |
| Number of times attended CRP in the past 3 months | 17.7 ± 11.6 | 16.0 ± 10.4 | .0151) | |
| Difficulty with activities of daily living (ADLs) (7 = independent to 21 = most dependent) | 9.6 ± 3.2 | 9.0 ± 3.0 | .0061) | |
| Dementia (0 = normal to 7 = dementia) | 0.2 ± 0.8 | 0.2 ± 0.9 | .553 | |
| Cardiovascular disease (CVD) | 532 (82%) | 286 (60%) | < .00012) | |
| Hemiplesia | 469 (72%) | 260 (54%) | 69.3 | < .00012) |
| Proportion of Hemiplesia in CVD | 469/532(88%) | 260/286(93%) | 39.5 | |
| Duration from onset | 6.9 ± 7.7 | 8.7 ± 10.4 | .0011) | |
| Spouse as primary caregiver | 465 (72%) | 174 (36%) | 140.8 | < .00012) |
| Accompanied by caregiver to the program | 243 (37%) | 146 (30%) | 6.03 | .014 |
| Referred by a friend | 85 (13%) | 113 (24%) | 20.8 | < .00012) |
| Referred by a hospital | 156 (24%) | 90 (19%) | 4.53 | .0332) |
| Through newspapers | 119 (18%) | 61 (13%) | 6.52 | .012) |
| Hospital rehabilitation program | 525 (81%) | 318 (66%) | 31.3 | < .00012) |
| Primary physician | 635 (98%) | 461 (96%) | 3.2 | .076 |
| Social service pass | 537 (83%) | 341 (71%) | 21.9 | < .00012) |
1) t-test
2) Chi-square test (2 × 2)
Note: The number of respondents (as denominator) is different in each item.
Comparison of gender and ADL of participants by accompanying status (n = 1,085)*
| Accompanied | 372 | 231 (37%) | 141 (31%) | 10.9 ± 3.6 | 11.4 ± 3.6 | 10.9 ± 3.5 | .174 | ||
| Unaccompanied | 713 | 395 (63%) | 321 (69%) | 8.18 ± 2.4 | 8.7 ± 2.4 | 8.5 ± 2.3 | .157 | ||
| Total | 1085 | 623 (100%) | 462 (100%) | 9.3 ± 3.2 | 8.8 ± 3.0 | .006 | |||
* missing data on ADLs (n = 44)
Comparison of gender and ADL of participants (n = 1,085)* by different types of transportation services offered by programs (n = 53)
| No service | 20 (38%) | 215 (20%) | 138(64%)a | 77 (36%) | 8.8 ± 3.0 | 9.7 ± 3.3 | 8.8 ± 2.4 | .023 | ||
| Bus stop | 13 (25%) | 395 (36%) | 215 (54%) | 180 (45%) | 9.0 ± 2.8 | 9.7 ± 3.0 | 8.9 ± 2.5 | .005 | ||
| Door-to-door | 17 (32%) | 411 (38%) | 224 (55%) | 187 (46%) | 9.9 ± 3.4 | < .0001c | 10.5 ± 3.5 | 10.3 ± 3.4 | .482 | |
| Other | 3 (6%) | 64 (3%) | 46 (72%) | 18 (28%) | 9.7 ± 3.0 | 9.7 ± 3.0 | 9.6 ± 3.0 | .941 | ||
| Total | 53 (100%) | 1,085 (100%) | 623 (57%) | 462 (43%) | 9.3 ± 3.1 | 9.3 ± 3.2 | 8.8 ± 3.0 | .006 | ||
* missing data of ADL (n = 44)
a Total number in each service = 100%
bChi-Square test (2 × 4)
cANOVA
Figure 2Gender proportion and ADL levels of all participants (n = 1,085).
Figure 3Gender proportion and ADL levels of no transportation services group (n = 215).
Figure 4Gender proportion and ADL levels of door-to-door transportation services group (n = 411).
Figure 5Gender proportion and ADL levels of bus stop pickup transportation service group (n = 395).