| Literature DB >> 26005693 |
Mehri Alaviani1, Shahla Khosravan2, Ali Alami3, Mahdi Moshki4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Loneliness is one of the most significant problems during aging. This research has been done to determine the effect of a multi-strategy program based on Pender's Health Promotion model to prevent loneliness of elderly women by improving social relationships.Entities:
Keywords: Aging; Female; Loneliness; Model; Pender’s Health Promotion
Year: 2015 PMID: 26005693 PMCID: PMC4441350
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Community Based Nurs Midwifery ISSN: 2322-2476
comparison of demographic variables between intervention and control groups
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Marital Status | 0.47 | ||||
| Married | 54 | 72 | 50 | 66.6 | |
| Single | 21 | 28 | 25 | 33.4 | Chi-Square |
| Educational level | 0.86 | ||||
| Illiterate | 28 | 37.3 | 27 | 36 | |
| Literate | 47 | 62.7 | 48 | 64 | Chi-Square |
| Occupation | 0.36 | ||||
| Retired | 4 | 3.5 | 1 | 1.3 | |
| House keeper | 71 | 94.7 | 74 | 98.7 | Fisher’s Exact Test |
| Status | 0.53 | ||||
| Living alone | 17 | 22.7 | 15 | 20 | |
| Living with wife | 37 | 49.3 | 30 | 40 | |
| Living with wife and children | 15 | 20 | 21 | 28 | |
| Living with children | |||||
| Status | 6 | 8 | 8 | 10.7 | Chi-Square |
| Other | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1.3 | |
| The level of income | 0.44 | ||||
| Sufficient | 20 | 26.7 | 16 | 21.3 | Chi-Square |
| Insufficient | 55 | 73.3 | 59 | 78.7 | |
| Chronic disease status | 0.55 | ||||
| Having chronic disease | 60 | 80 | 57 | 76 | Chi-Square |
| Not having chronic disease | 15 | 20 | 18 | 24 | |
Comparison of mean (standard deviation) score of feeling loneliness in the intervention and control groups before and after study
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
| Before study | 43.4±3.7 | 42.5±3.9 |
0.151 |
| After study | 30.5±4.2 | 42.7±3.8 | |
| P value paired samples t-test | P<0.001 | P=0.2 | |
Comparison of mean (standard deviation) Pender’s health promotion model constructs related to loneliness in the intervention and control groups before and after the intervention
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
| Perceived benefits | Before | 13.3±3.0 | 13.6±2.8 | 0.600 |
| After | 9.5±1.7 | 14.0±2.6 | P<0.001 | |
| Perceived barriers | Before | 42.7±6.2 | 41.3±7.3 | 0.198 |
| After | 27.8±5.5 | 41.6±6.3 | P<0.001 | |
| Perceived self-efficacy | Before | 11.0±2.5 | 11.2±2.4 | 0.582 |
| After | 18.0±3.1 | 11.1±2.5 | P<0.001 | |
| Interpersonal influences | Before | 3.5±1.4 | 3.5±1.4 | 0.955 |
| After | 9.0±2.2 | 3.5±1.9 | P<0.001 | |
Comparison of interpersonal influences (relations) before and after the intervention in the intervention and control groups
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Family | 46 (61.3%) | 29 (38.7%) | 48 (64%) | 27 (36%) | 0.736 | 51 (78.5%) | 14 (21.5) | 43 (57.3%) | 32 (42.7%) | 0.008 |
| Friends | 30 (40%) | 45 (60%) | 26 (34.7%) | 49 (65.3%) | 0.500 | 54 (83.1%) | 11 (16.9%) | 38 (50.7%) | 37 (49.3%) | P<0.001 |
| Neighbors | 59 (78.7%) | 16 (21.3%) | 63 (84%) | 12 (16%) | P=0.402 | 60 (92.3%) | 5 (7.7%) | 50 (66.7%) | 25 (33.3%) | P<0.001 |
| Cares and health providers | 18 (24%) | 57 (86%) | 14 (18.7%) | 14 (18.7%) | 0.425 | 50 (76.9%) | 15 (23.1%) | 16 (21.3%) | 59 (78.7%) | P<0.001 |
*Chi square Test