| Literature DB >> 33023510 |
Ilky Pollansky Silva E Farias1, Luiza de Almeida Souto Montenegro1, Rayssa Lucena Wanderley1, Jannerson Cesar Xavier de Pontes1, Antonio Carlos Pereira2, Leopoldina de Fátima Dantas de Almeida3, Yuri Wanderley Cavalcanti4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nursing home elders experience many problems that may influence their quality of life, in example of cognitive, mental, nutritional and physical disabilities. Concerning about elders' wellbeing may help them living with dignity. This study aimed to investigate factors associated with Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) of institutionalized elders in a capital city of Brazilian Northeast.Entities:
Keywords: Aged; Frail elderly; Institutionalization; Quality of life
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33023510 PMCID: PMC7542385 DOI: 10.1186/s12877-020-01791-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Geriatr ISSN: 1471-2318 Impact factor: 3.921
Fig. 1Theoretical-conceptual model of factors that would determine the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL – dependent variable) of institutionalized elderly
Frequency distribution of institutionalized elderly’s HRQoL (n = 125), according to sex, educational level, retirement, family visits, performance of daily-living activities and frailty status
| Independent Variables | HRQoL | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poor | Good | |||||
| n | % | n | % | |||
| Male | 21 | 16.8 | 21 | 16.8 | 0.848 | |
| Female | 40 | 32.0 | 43 | 34.4 | ||
| Primary, secondary or higher education | 36 | 28.8 | 39 | 31.2 | 0.827 | |
| Literate or illiterate | 25 | 20.0 | 25 | 20.0 | ||
| Yes | 59 | 47.2 | 51 | 40.8 | 0.002 | |
| No | 2 | 1.6 | 15 | 12.0 | ||
| Yes | 44 | 35.2 | 48 | 38.4 | 0.717 | |
| No | 17 | 13.6 | 16 | 12.8 | ||
| Independent (dependent of ≤1 function) | 43 | 34.4 | 58 | 46.4 | 0.004 | |
| Dependent (dependent of ≥2 functions) | 18 | 14.4 | 6 | 4.8 | ||
| Not Frail (< 3 points) | 19 | 15.2 | 50 | 40.0 | < 0.001 | |
| Frail (≥ 3 points) | 42 | 33.6 | 14 | 11.2 | ||
*chi-square or exact Fisher test
Descriptive statistics regarding age, nutritional status (MNA-SF), cognitive status (MMSE), self-perceived oral health (GOHAI), depression status (GDS) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of institutionalized elderly (n = 125)
| Variables | Mean | SD | Median | Min. | Max. | Q25 | Q75 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 78.82 | 8.16 | 79 | 60 | 99 | 74 | 85 | |
| 9.82 | 3.65 | 11 | 2 | 14 | 8 | 13 | |
| 23.92 | 3.80 | 24 | 18 | 30 | 21 | 27 | |
| 32.10 | 4.15 | 33 | 0 | 37 | 31 | 34 | |
| 4.61 | 3.51 | 4 | 0 | 14 | 2 | 7 | |
| 63.42 | 16.09 | 64 | 32 | 90 | 50 | 78 |
SD Standard Deviation, Min. Minimum value, Max. Maximum value, Q25 1st quartile (25%), Q75 3rd quartile (75%)
Crude and adjusted multiple Poisson loglinear regression models to predict variables associated with the HRQoL score among institutionalized elderly. Statistically significant linear regression coefficients (B) result in an impact on HRQoL score
| 0.000 | 0.0021 | 0.927 | 1.000 | 0.996 | 1.004 | |
| 0.028 | 0.0362 | 0.443 | 1.028 | 0.958 | 1.104 | |
| −0.031 | 0.0379 | 0.419 | 0.970 | 0.900 | 1.045 | |
| −0.159 | 0.0662 | 0.016 | 0.853 | 0.749 | 0.971 | |
| 0.067 | 0.0433 | 0.122 | 1.069 | 0.982 | 1.164 | |
| 0.015 | 0.0490 | 0.760 | 1.015 | 0.922 | 1.117 | |
| 0.139 | 0.0491 | 0.005 | 1.149 | 1.044 | 1.265 | |
| 0.005 | 0.0052 | 0.336 | 1.005 | 0.995 | 1.015 | |
| 0.003 | 0.0035 | 0.401 | 1.003 | 0.996 | 1.010 | |
| −0.034 | 0.0073 | < 0.001 | 0.967 | 0.953 | 0.981 | |
| 0.003 | 0.0049 | 0.589 | 1.003 | 0.993 | 1.012 | |
| 0.064 | 0.0405 | 0.115 | 1.066 | 0.985 | 1.154 | |
| 0.007 | 0.0049 | 0.154 | 1.007 | 0.997 | 1.017 | |
* Model adjustment after progressive removal of variables: Age (p = 0.927), Dependency (0.761), MMSE (p = 0.566), Education (p = 0.527), Sex (p = 0.483), and GOHAI (p = 0.359). Omnibus test significance: p < 0.001
Crude and adjusted Multiple binary logistic regression models to predict variables associated with good HRQoL (≥64 points) of institutionalized elderly. Variables with statistically significant Odds Ratio (OR) impacted negatively the HRQoL score
| 0.036 | 0.0346 | 0.299 | 1.037 | 0.969 | 1.109 | |
| 0.133 | 0.5169 | 0.797 | 1.142 | 0.415 | 3.146 | |
| −0.694 | 0.6028 | 0.250 | 0.500 | 0.153 | 1.629 | |
| −2.786 | 0.9543 | 0.004 | 0.062 | 0.010 | 0.400 | |
| 1.151 | 0.6742 | 0.088 | 3.161 | 0.843 | 11.849 | |
| 0.230 | 0.7914 | 0.771 | 1.259 | 0.267 | 5.939 | |
| 1.524 | 0.5551 | 0.006 | 4.589 | 1.546 | 13.622 | |
| 0.089 | 0.0755 | 0.240 | 1.093 | 0.942 | 1.267 | |
| 0.023 | 0.0415 | 0.571 | 1.024 | 0.944 | 1.110 | |
| −0.350 | 0.1073 | 0.001 | 0.705 | 0.571 | 0.870 | |
| 0.056 | 0.0703 | 0.429 | 1.057 | 0.921 | 1.213 | |
| 0.968 | 0.5901 | 0.101 | 2.633 | 0.828 | 8.371 | |
| 0.091 | 0.0677 | 0.180 | 1.095 | 0.959 | 1.250 | |
* Model adjustment after progressive removal of variables: Sex (p = 0.797), Dependency (p = 0.788), GOHAI (p = 0.570), MMSE (p = 0.410), Age (p = 0.357) and Education (p = 0.311). Omnibus test significance: p < 0.001