| Literature DB >> 30275374 |
Yiqi Tao1, Stephen Siu Yu Lau2, Zhonghua Gou3, Jiayan Fu4, Boya Jiang5, Xiaowei Chen6.
Abstract
This study aims to understand the relationship between bedroom privacy and well-being of the elderly in aged care facilities with a compact living situation. A majority of studies on this topic were carried out in a low-density population context. The crowded living situation might compromise the well-being of residents. This study proposed five architectural parameters to measure bedroom privacy in aged care facilities: total open surface per unit, openness/solid ratio per bed, height of partition wall, number of people per unit, and personal control over bedroom privacy. SF-12 v.2 Health Survey was used to collect information on physical and mental health status. The study surveyed nine Care & Attention homes and their 213 residents in Hong Kong. The total open surface per unit and the openness/solid ratio per bed were positively associated with the physical health of residents. The height of partition walls was associated negatively with their physical and mental health conditions, and the number of people per unit was negatively associated with their physical health. More than half of respondents preferred a single unit with high partition walls; however, 40% of respondents preferred low partition walls. The provision of privacy for the elderly should be balanced with their needs for social interactions; total open surface per unit, openness/solid ratio per bed and height of partition wall should be taken into consideration. The study provides evidence and design guidelines for improving privacy in aged care facilities with a compact living environment.Entities:
Keywords: aged care facilities; compact living; elderly; privacy; well-being
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30275374 PMCID: PMC6209900 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15102157
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Locations of the nine Care and Attention (C&A) homes in Hong Kong (drawn by the authors).
Figure 2C&A homes in tall buildings (drawn by the authors).
Figure 3The arrangement of bedroom and communal areas (drawn by the authors).
Figure 4Typical chamber of C&A homes in Hong Kong (photo by the authors).
Figure 5Axonometric view of the bedrooms (drawn by the authors).
Figure 6Typical bedroom unit for the calculation (drawn by the authors).
Descriptive analysis.
| Items | Sample Size | Mean |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 74 | 35% |
| Female | 139 | 65% |
| Age groups | ||
| 65–75 years | 64 | 30% |
| 75–85 years | 59 | 28% |
| >85 years | 90 | 42% |
| SF-12v2 | ||
| Physical Component Summary score (PCS) | 213 | 41.8 |
| Mental Component Summary score (MCS) | 213 | 50.8 |
Mean value of five parameters measured in C&A homes.
| Parameter | R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | R6 | R7 | R8 | R9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total open surface per unit | 11.51 | 15.57 | 10.44 | 8.88 | 8.79 | 15.28 | 14.41 | 6.79 | 8.79 |
| Openness/solid ratio per bed | 0.50 | 0.67 | 0.50 | 0.42 | 0.49 | 0.76 | 0.49 | 0.71 | 0.76 |
| Height of partition wall | 2.18 | 1.89 | 1.76 | 2.13 | 1.56 | 1.32 | 2.03 | 2.30 | 2.50 |
| Unit density (number of people per unit) | 1 | 1.6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7.8 | 1 | 5.7 | 4.3 |
| Personal control over privacy | 2 | 2 | 1.5 | 2 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.4 |
Regression analysis between privacy and health status.
| Parameter | Health Status | Equation | Sig. | Constant | b1 | b2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total open surface per unit | PCS | Linear | 0.001 | 33.219 | 0.787 | |
| Quadratic | 0.002 | 20.113 | 3.242 | −0.107 | ||
| Window/wall ratio per bed | PCS | Linear | 0.010 | 50.562 | −15.137 | |
| Quadratic | 0.000 | −81.352 | 447.095 | −389.090 | ||
| Height of partition wall | PCS | Linear | 0.021 | 51.459 | −4.803 | |
| Quadratic | 0.000 | −36.733 | 88.196 | −23.805 | ||
| MCS | Linear | 0.029 | 59.59 | −4.390 | ||
| People/unit | PCS | Linear | 0.000 | 45.040 | −1.306 | |
| Quadratic | 0.000 | 46.507 | −2.722 | 0.190 | ||
| Personal control | PCS | Linear | 0.003 | 34.105 | 5.011 | |
| Quadratic | 0.013 | 32.819 | 6.937 | −0.664 |
Figure 7Preferred room types.
Figure 8Preferred room types with age group.
Figure 9Preferred partition walls.
Figure 10Preferred partition walls with age group.