| Literature DB >> 28107400 |
Sasmita Kusumastuti1, Esther van Fenema2, Eugenie C F Polman-van Stratum3, Wilco Achterberg4, Jolanda Lindenberg3, Rudi G J Westendorp1.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Many medical schools have initiated care internships to familiarize their students with older persons and to instil a professional attitude.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28107400 PMCID: PMC5249097 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169977
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Demographic Characteristics of the Students before the Care Internship.
| Demographic Characteristics | N = 248 | % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | <17 | 11.3 | ||
| 18 | 42.7 | |||
| 19 | 24.6 | |||
| 20 | 14.1 | |||
| 21 | 2.4 | |||
| 22 | 1.6 | |||
| >23 | 2.0 | |||
| Gender | Female | 65.3 | ||
| Living in a house with older person | Yes | 1.6 | ||
| Family member / friend / neighbour with dementia | Yes | 31.5 | ||
| Number of grandparents still alive | 0 | 9.3 | ||
| 1 | 18.1 | |||
| 2 | 35.5 | |||
| 3 | 24.2 | |||
| 4 | 12.1 | |||
| Number of great grandparents still alive | 0 | 95.2 | ||
| 1 | 2.8 | |||
| 2 | 0.8 | |||
| Previous internship with older persons | Yes | 16.9 | ||
| Working experience with older persons | Yes | 28.2 | ||
| Volunteer experience with older persons | Yes | 16.5 | ||
| Experience working as caregiver | Yes | 19.0 | ||
| If experienced, as a caregiver for | Friend | 1.6 | ||
| Nuclear family | 4.8 | |||
| Neighbours | 1.6 | |||
| Extended family | 12.1 | |||
| Someone in the family gives care | Yes | 31.5 | ||
| Institution preferred for internship | Residential care facility | 10.1 | ||
| Nursing home | 7.7 | |||
| Home care | 4.0 | |||
| Hospital | 60.5 | |||
| Psychiatry | 13.3 | |||
Effect of Intergroup Contact on General Image.
| Questionnaire | Full Range of Scores | Change in Mean (SD) | Mean Difference (SE) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before Contact | After Contact | |||
| Aging Semantic Differential | 0–224 | 118.4 (16.5) | 122.7 (18.9) | 4.2 (1.6)* |
| Attitudes toward Old People | 0–238 | 112.1 (19.4) | 118.4 (17.4) | 6.3 (1.7)** |
Higher scores indicate worsening general image after intergroup contact.
Independent t-test analysis * p < 0.01, ** p < 0.001.
Comparison of General Image Before and After Intergroup Contact.
| Before | After | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Contact | Contact | ||
| % | % | ||
| Age group considered as old (years) * | >55 | 1.6 | 1.3 |
| >60 | 8.2 | 5.6 | |
| >65 | 42.2 | 41.0 | |
| >70 | 30.7 | 20.9 | |
| >75 | 16.0 | 27.4 | |
| >80 | 1.2 | 3.8 | |
| Will find as much satisfaction in care of older patients as with younger patients ** | Yes | 78.5 | 62.1 |
| Would like to work in a practice where most patients are >65 years after training | Certainly not | 6.2 | 12.2 |
| Rather not | 60.6 | 60.3 | |
| Makes no difference | 32.0 | 25.3 | |
| Rather yes | 0.4 | 1.3 | |
| Certainly yes | 0.8 | 0.9 |
Chi square analyses * p < 0.01, ** p < 0.001.
Fig 1Effect of Intergroup Contact on Concepts.
*** p < 0.001. A mean positive difference represents worsening image on concepts after intergroup contact.
Fig 2Effect of Intergroup Contact on Concepts Stratified by Gender and Contact Experience of the Students.
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. A mean positive difference represents worsening image on concepts after intergroup contact.