| Literature DB >> 33810112 |
Elizabeth Wianto1,2, Elty Sarvia3, Chien-Hsu Chen1,4.
Abstract
The aging population significantly is shifting the center of gravity of the people toward older ages and median age. Indonesia, as one of the most populous countries, needs to prepare for this situation. This study tries to explain whether the elderly's sedentary lifestyle is the consequence of intergenerational interaction patterns. Filial piety was arguably implemented, as the interaction baseline within a family member affects how the intergeneration communicates. This study uses thematic analysis based on the opinions from 16 respondents' experiences and values with respect to behavior toward the older generation with a specific inclusion criterion. Sampling structures represented younger-generation adults who interacted daily with the elderly older generation, divided by their marital status, residencies, and living area in Indonesia. Through emerging themes, was is found out that the dominant figure in the family is the communication center in the family. The dominant figure might be an authoritative parent or dominant child. This targeted approach is useful to enhance connectivity within family members, potentially implementing the Internet of Healthy Things (IoHT) for the younger elderly to reduce undesirable sedentary lifestyles and to deliver sustainable healthy aging in Indonesian society.Entities:
Keywords: aging population; filial piety; healthy aging; physical activities
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33810112 PMCID: PMC8004678 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18063290
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Classification of participants’ attributes.
| No | Classification Attributes | Class | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Living area | rural; urban | Living area of the elderly. |
| 2 | Elderly relationship with the respondents | parents; parents-in-law; unmarried aunt; and grandparents | Elderly relationship with the respondents. |
| 3. | Elderly dependency | independent; partly dependent; and totally dependent | Dependency status of the elderly according to the respondents.a |
| 4 | Elderly Age | 66–65; 66–70; 71–75; 76–89; 81–85; and 86–90 | Elderly age range. |
| 5 | Elderly financial | financially independent; still have income, and dependent | Financial ability of the elderly.b |
| 6 | Children of the | 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; and 7 | Relates to how many children alive they still have. |
| 7 | Elderly co-residency status | with children; | The co-residency status is not always with the respondents. |
| 9 | Elderly mobility | able to do independent mobility; not able to do independent mobility | Mobility capacity of the elderly. |
| 10 | Elderly supported by | all children; available/willing children; and no support | Related to who supports the elderly.d |
| 11 | Respondents’ living arrangement with the elderly | respondents living arrangement with the elderly: co-residency; and non-co-residency | It is separated by the number 7 (elderly co-residency status). |
| 12 | Respondents’ age range | 26–30; 31–35; 36–40; 41–45; 46–50; and 51–55 | Age range of the respondents. |
| 13 | Respondents’ child status in the family | only child; eldest; middle; and youngest | Respondents’ child status in the family. |
| 14 | Respondents’ | married; un-married | Respondents’ marital status. |
| 15 | Respondents socio-economic status | 1 to 10 (1 for not enough, 10 for more than enough) | Subjective socio-economic of the respondents. |
| 16 | Respondents’ highest education | Bachelor’s degree; Master’s degree; doctoral degree. | Highest education achieved by the respondents. |
| 17 | Respondents’ sex | female; male | Respondents’ sex. |
a This dependency does not always mean that the children do not/are not able/are not willing to support the parents. b This status does not mean that the children do not support the elderly, but refers to the elderly’s capacity to financially support themselves according to their children. c This item clearly states whether the elderly live in co-residence with the respondents or not. d This item refers to whether they are supported by all children, not supported, or supported by the available children. The support is not only related to financial, but also to other aspects.
Categories clustered based on initial coding.
| No | Categories | Description | Subcategories |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Related to | Opinion in a broader | Brain activation for the elderly; judgment of elderly’s physical condition; societal power through blood relation; parents cannot compare with anyone; independent and capable younger people; younger people needs to act less superior towards the elderly |
| 2 | Relationship between parents—children | Opinion related to how | Affordability; decency; emotionally; |
| 3 | Children’s | Opinion related to how, when, and why the respondents support their parents | How; when; why. |
| 4 | Factors influence relationship | All of the factors can comprise the baseline of their thought and act. | Cultural value (including religious value) and personal value |
| 5 | Respondents’ point of view | Specific opinion regarding anything explaining their relationship to supporting | Blessing from the elderly; changing priority; I do what I like people do to me; I will be disappointed if I can’t do it; reason to keep the ideal norm; appropriate to pay respect to parents; and tolerance between siblings |
| 6 | Wrongdoing to my parents | Specific opinion regarding respondent’s guilt for the action they did to their parents. | I’m not doing what supposed to do; I don’t feel like (to do) it; I don’t have enough knowledge before; I failed the manner; I failed to calm him down; I failed to give what best for him; I lied to them; I think that it is not important; and my parents think differently |
| 7 | Related to elderly physical activities | Specific opinions from the respondents related to physical activities of the elderly people. | because they are old; they need to have rest; disease; the elderly are not supposed to/not allowed to do it; full dependency of the elderly; physical assist for those who need it (not only to elderly); physically independent |
Authoritative parents’ characteristics.
| No | Item | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | STRENGTH |
Financially independent Advantage of being obeyed by a family member Able to motivate themselves |
| 2 | WEAKNESS |
Children do not dare to argue with parents even though there are other good points of view from their children Gradually cognitively declining |
| 3 | OPPORTUNITY |
Positive indicator of well-being (like their life to go on as the usual condition), makes it possible to increase self-determination |
| 4 | THREAT |
The elderly depend on themselves to measure their capacity of doing daily living activities |
Dominant children characteristics.
| No | Item | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | STRENGTH |
Advantage of being heard by family members. Take the exclusivity of taking care of parents as their privilege. Affordability in terms of financial state to support parents. |
| 2 | WEAKNESS |
The false assumption that they should make the elderly stop working as a reward for previous merit. Intensity to take care of parents is determined by their priorities. The authority to take care of parents strictly within family members. |
| 3 | OPPORTUNITY |
Feel sad about the elderly’s declining condition, which makes them take care of parents. Feel obligated to “repay” parent’s merit. Limitation of time to take care of the parents. |
| 4 | THREAT |
Neglecting parents when they feel it is not important. Sway of priorities if their spouse has different priorities towards taking care of parents. Difference of cultural perspectives between parents’ families with their own family; for example, the spouse’s cultural perspective might not be suitable to approach parents’ well-being. |
Figure 1Communication model to support sustainable healthy elderly in intergenerational interaction.