| Literature DB >> 31594545 |
Su Aw1, Gerald C H Koh2, Chuen Seng Tan2, Mee Lian Wong2, Hubertus J M Vrijhoef3,4, Susana Concordo Harding5, Mary Ann B Geronimo5, Zoe J L Hildon2,6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the emphasis on holistic health promotion in community programs for older people, few studies explicitly consider how BioPsychoSocial (BPS) health elements are interconnected and function to improve Quality of Life (QoL). The Community for Successful Ageing (ComSA) program in Singapore focuses on Community Development (CD) initiatives for older people, accounting for BPS theory in its design and content. Biological (B) health is conceived as physiological and cognitive functioning and related biological self-care; Psychological (P) health as feelings of life satisfaction, and Social health (S) as perceived social support and civic engagement. Furthermore, three overlapping sub-constructs are theorized to connect these elements. Namely Bio-Psychological (BP) health in terms of self-perceptions of ageing; the Psycho-Social (PS) aspects of interpersonal communication; and the Socio-Communal (SC) health in terms of civic engagement. BPS health is conceived as distinct from QoL, defined as composed of control, autonomy, self-realisation and pleasure (measured by CASP-19) of the older person. We examined 1) interconnections of BPS constructs and related sub-constructs and 2) their associations with QoL to inform a practical, applied program theory.Entities:
Keywords: BioPsychoSocial programs; Holistic conceptualization of health; Older adults; Quality of life
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31594545 PMCID: PMC6784337 DOI: 10.1186/s12877-019-1277-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Geriatr ISSN: 1471-2318 Impact factor: 3.921
Fig. 1Definitions of BioPsychoSocial health and their interconnections. Proposed Pathway of how the six BioPsychoSocial Health constructs important for Quality of Life at old age are associated with one another. Pathway is derived from literature and existing empirical studies. Bio-Psychological (BP), Psycho-Social (PS) and Social-Communal (SC) sub-constructs are indented to show how they extend and connect the existing BPS constructs, demarcated by the bi-directional arrow
Fig. 2Connecting BPS Theory and Program Design in ComSA CD. Design of the ComSA CD program. Program components (SCOPE, GAB, SWING) are mapped onto respective BioPsychoSocial target outcomes, and hypothesized to work using respective mechanisms as the change pathway, as demarcated by the arrows. Trainer mechanisms refer to implementation strategies used by program trainers based on literature review of similar programs. Participant mechanisms refer to individual-level determinants of change, which were the most significant change barriers from ComSA CD formative assessment
Survey Participant Characteristics at Baseline (N = 321) *
| Socio-demographics | ||
| Mean Age (SD) | 70 (8.73) | |
| Female (%) | 77.9 | |
| Ethnicity (%) | ||
| Chinese | 81.0 | |
| Indian/Malay | 19.0 | |
| Primary Education and Above (%) | 73.5 | |
| Own a House (%) | 90.7 | |
| Living Alone (%) | 19.6 | |
| At least one longstanding Illness (%) | 70.1 | |
| Functional Problems (%) | 63.9 | |
| BPS health (%) | ||
| B | Frequency of Self-Care | |
| High | 60.8 | |
| BP | Perceptions of Ageing | |
| High | 44.9 | |
| P | Life Satisfaction | |
| High | 42.1 | |
| PS | Interpersonal Communication | |
| High | 28.7 | |
| S | Social Health | |
| High | 43.9 | |
| SC | Civic Engagement | |
| High | 36.1 | |
| Primary Variable (%) | ||
| CASP19 Quality of Life | ||
| High | 50.2 | |
*continuous = Kruskal Wallis test, categorical = chi-square association, high = above the median score
Logistic Regression predicting Higher Quality of Life at Baseline (N = 321)
| Model 1 (unadjusted bivariate) | Model 2 (adjusted multivariate) * | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 = 0.31 | ||||
| OR (95%CI) |
| OR (95%CI) |
| |
| B: Frequency of Self-Care | ||||
| Low | ref | ref | ||
| High | 1.90 (1.21–2.99) | 0.01 | 1.47 (0.80–2.67) | 0.21 |
| BP: Perceptions of Ageing | ||||
| Low | ref | |||
| High | 7.49 (4.54–12.34) | < 0.01 | 4.07 (2.21–7.49) | < 0.01 |
| P: Life Satisfaction | ||||
| Low | ref | |||
| High | 5.63 (3.46–9.19) | < 0.01 | 3.66 (2.04–6.57) | < 0.01 |
| PS: Interpersonal Communication | ||||
| Low | ref | |||
| High | 4.55 (2.65–7.82) | < 0.01 | 2.42 (1.23–4.77) | 0.01 |
| S: Social Support | ||||
| Low | ref | |||
| High | 2.77 (1.76–4.37) | < 0.01 | 1.89 (1.06–3.38) | 0.03 |
| SC: Civic Engagement | ||||
| Low | ref | |||
| High | 2.58 (1.61–4.14) | < 0.01 | 1.94 (1.05–3.57) | 0.03 |
*Adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, education, housing, living alone, functional problems and longstanding illness
Odd Ratios between Biopsychosocial Constructs at Baseline (N = 321)
| BP: High Ageing perceptions | P: High Life Satisfaction | PS: High Interpersonal communication | S: High Social Support | SC: Civic Engagement | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95%CI) | OR (95%CI) | OR (95%CI) | OR (95%CI) | OR (95%CI) | |
| B: High Self-care | 1.72 (1.04–2.83) * | ||||
| BP: High Ageing perceptions* | 3.80 (2.35–6.15) | ||||
| P: High Life Satisfaction | 2.29 (1.40–3.74) | ||||
| PS: High Interpersonal communication | 2.31 (1.42–3.80) | ||||
| S: High Social Support | 2.05 (1.29–3.25) |
* Between B self-care and BP positive ageing consequence subscale