| Literature DB >> 31703707 |
Chichen Zhang1,2,3, Xiao Zheng4, Ruifang Zhu5, Lihong Hou6, Xiaozhao Yousef Yang7, Jiao Lu6, Feng Jiang8, Tingzhong Yang9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the disintegration of the extended family in recent years, the empty-nest phenomenon is increasingly common in China and the health of empty nesters is attracting more attention. Lifestyles, accounting for 53% in determining death, play a vital role in improving the health of individuals. However, it was rarely studied in promoting the health of empty nesters. In this study, we proposed a "SMG" model in empty nesters, including the self-management, mutual management, and group management, to implement health-promoting lifestyles interventions among empty nesters to provide an effective means to improve their lifestyles and health.Entities:
Keywords: Empty nesters; Health management; Health-promoting lifestyles; Intervention; The “SMG” model
Year: 2019 PMID: 31703707 PMCID: PMC6839261 DOI: 10.1186/s12955-019-1222-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes ISSN: 1477-7525 Impact factor: 3.186
Fig. 1“SMG” hierarchical management roadmap. Legend: The figure was from authors’ previous paper named Study on “SMG” health management model of the empty-nest elderly based on community organization theory (theory article) [14]
Fig. 2Flow chart of participant enrolment
Fig. 3The detailed components of SMG intervention
Comparison of the basic characteristics of the intervention and control groups
| Characteristic | Category | Intervention group | Control group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proportion (%) | Proportion (%) | ||||||
| Gender | Male | 96 | 57.49 | 91 | 49.73 | 2.112 | 0.146 |
| Female | 71 | 42.51 | 92 | 50.27 | |||
| Age | 60–69 years | 86 | 51.50 | 89 | 48.63 | 1.865 | 0.394 |
| 70–79 years | 59 | 35.33 | 76 | 41.53 | |||
| 80 years or above | 22 | 13.17 | 18 | 9.84 | |||
| Education | primary education or below | 83 | 49.70 | 106 | 47.90 | 2.377 | 0.134 |
| secondary education or above | 84 | 50.30 | 77 | 52.30 | |||
| Marital Status | Married | 113 | 67.66 | 131 | 71.58 | 0.848 | 0.838 |
| Never married | 9 | 5.39 | 7 | 3.83 | |||
| Divorced | 5 | 3.00 | 5 | 2.73 | |||
| Widowed | 40 | 23.95 | 40 | 21.86 | |||
| Empty nester subtype | an elderly person of no family | 23 | 13.77 | 20 | 10.93 | 1.018 | 0.601 |
| Relative empty nest | 122 | 73.06 | 142 | 77.59 | |||
| Absolute empty nest | 22 | 13.17 | 21 | 11.48 | |||
| Employment | Yes | 18 | 10.78 | 17 | 9.29 | 0.215 | 0.643 |
| No | 149 | 89.22 | 166 | 90.71 | |||
| Monthly income | No income | 51 | 30.54 | 61 | 33.33 | 1.922 | 0.589 |
| < 1000 RMB | 43 | 25.75 | 45 | 24.59 | |||
| 1000–3000 RMB | 40 | 23.95 | 50 | 27.32 | |||
| > 3000 RMB | 33 | 19.76 | 27 | 14.76 | |||
| Social activity participation | Most | 19 | 11.38 | 18 | 9.83 | 1.419 | 0.701 |
| More | 60 | 35.93 | 57 | 31.15 | |||
| Less | 69 | 41.31 | 85 | 46.45 | |||
| No | 19 | 11.38 | 23 | 12.57 | |||
| Chronic disease | Yes | 44 | 26.35 | 65 | 35.52 | 3.425 | 0.064 |
| No | 123 | 73.65 | 118 | 64.48 | |||
Generalised estimating equations results of HPLP-C and six dimensions scores between control and intervention group
| Baseline | Follow-up | Follow-up | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control (Mean, SD) | Intervention (Mean, SD) | Control | Intervention (Mean, SD) | Mean difference (95%CI) | ||
| N | 183 | 167 | 183 | 167 | ||
| HPLP-C | 107.34 (18.32) | 106.93 (19.99) | 106.96 (16.64) | 115.39 (13.27) | 8.838(6.369, 11.306) | < 0.001 |
| Self-realization | 37.30 (6.52) | 37.03 (7.53) | 36.98 (6.28) | 38.16 (5.39) | 1.443(0.352, 2.534) | 0.01 |
| Health responsibility | 20.75 (4.99) | 20.36 (5.50) | 21.02 (4.53) | 22.33 (4.68) | 1.492(0.477, 2.508) | 0.004 |
| Physical activity | 7.00 (2.20) | 6.90 (2.19) | 7.2 (2.01) | 8.14 (2.08) | 1.031(0.572, 1.491) | < 0.001 |
| Nutrition | 14.21 (2.74) | 14.44 (2.76) | 14.15 (3.47) | 15.2 (2.17) | 0.827(0.177, 1.476) | 0.013 |
| Interpersonal relations | 12.65 (2.72) | 12.82 (3.00) | 12.54 (2.38) | 15.62 (1.78) | 2.917(2.365, 3.469) | < 0.001 |
| Stress management | 15.42 (3.03) | 15.17 (3.43) | 15.46 (2.76) | 15.94 (2.71) | 0.729(0.131, 1.327) | 0.017 |
Model were adjusted for Education and Employment. The coefficient of the interaction term Time * Group estimates the mean difference in the change of the outcome variables over time between the two treatment groups
Generalised estimating equations for HPLP-C score
| Item | Estimate | CI | S.E. | Walls | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time | −8.455 | (−10.603, −6.307) | 0.603 | 0.380 | < 0.001 |
| Group | −7.639 | (−10.687, −4.592) | 1.973 | 0.369 | < 0.001 |
| Time*Group | 8.838 | (6.369, 11.306) | 1.260 | 49.23 | < 0.001 |
| Employment | 4.150 | (−2.151, 10.451) | 3.215 | 1.666 | 0.197 |
| Education | 8.833 | (6.369, 11.306) | 1.670 | 27.99 | < 0.001 |
The Estimate for Time is baseline to follow-up, for Group is control to intervention, for Employment is No compared to Yes and for Education is secondary education or above compared to primary education or below. Employment refers to current employment. In China, primary education or below refers to primary school education or no formal education. Secondary education or above refers to middle school education or above