| Literature DB >> 34007486 |
Sabita Sharma1, Dipendra Kumar Yadav1, Isha Karmacharya2, Raju Pandey1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The main objective of the study was to assess the nutritional status and quality of life in the geriatric population of Lahan municipality of Siraha district.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34007486 PMCID: PMC8110372 DOI: 10.1155/2021/6621278
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Nutr Metab ISSN: 2090-0724
Distribution of sociodemographic information of participants (n = 328).
| Characteristics | Frequency ( | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| 60–67 | 151 | 46.0 |
| >67 | 177 | 54.0 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Male | 190 | 57.9 |
| Female | 138 | 42.1 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Dalit | 46 | 14.1 |
| Disadvantaged Janajatis | 43 | 13.1 |
| Disadvantaged non-Dalit | 203 | 61.9 |
| Religious minorities | 28 | 8.5 |
| Relatively advantaged Janajatis | 2 | 0.6 |
| Upper | 6 | 1.8 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Hindu | 298 | 90.9 |
| Buddhist | 3 | 0.9 |
| Muslims | 27 | 8.2 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Illiterate | 117 | 35.7 |
| Nonformal | 76 | 23.2 |
| Primary level | 71 | 21.6 |
| Secondary level | 59 | 18.0 |
| Bachelor and above | 5 | 1.5 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Agriculture | 144 | 43.9 |
| Business | 60 | 18.3 |
| Job | 49 | 14.9 |
| Wages | 29 | 8.8 |
| Others | 46 | 14.0 |
Association between sociodemographic variables and nutritional status.
| Variables | Nutritional status | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total, | Normal, | At risk/malnourished, |
| |
|
| ||||
| 60–67 | 165 (50.3) | 104 (63.0) | 61 (37.0) |
|
| 68 and above | 163 (49.7) | 9 (5.5) | 154 (94.5) | |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Male | 190 (57.9) | 70 (36.8) | 120 (63.2) |
|
| Female | 138 (42.1) | 43 (31.2) | 95 (68.8) | |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Disadvantaged non-Dalit | 203 (61.9) | 66 (32.5) | 137 (67.5) |
|
| Others | 125 (38.1) | 47 (37.6) | 78 (62.4) | |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Hindu | 298 (90.9) | 97 (32.6) | 201 (67.4) |
|
| Others | 30 (9.1) | 16 (53.3) | 14 (46.7) | |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Literate | 206 (62.8) | 84 (40.8) | 122 (59.2) |
|
| Illiterate | 122 (37.2) | 29 (23.8) | 93 (76.2) | |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Paid works | 138 (42.1) | 57 (41.3) | 81 (58.7) |
|
| Nonpaid works | 190 (57.9) | 56 (29.5) | 134 (70.5) | |
p value significant at <0.05.
Logistic regression on nutritional status with different variables.
| Characteristics | Nutritional status | |
|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted | Adjusted | |
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
|
| ||
| 60–67 | Ref. | Ref. |
| 68 and above |
|
|
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Male | Ref. | Ref. |
| Female | 1.29 (0.81–2.05) | 1.12 (0.62–2.04) |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Disadvantaged non-Dalit | 1.25 (0.78–1.99) | 0.88 (0.46–1.68) |
| Others | Ref. | Ref. |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Hindu |
| 2.26 (0.78–6.56) |
| Others | Ref. | Ref. |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Literate | Ref. | Ref. |
| Illiterate |
| 1.83 (0.94–3.57) |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Paid works | Ref. | Ref. |
| Nonpaid works |
| 0.97 (0.51–1.82) |
p < 0.05; p < 0.01; p < 0.001; all other statistics are not significant at p < 0.05; model adjusted for all covariates.
Descriptive statistics of transformed score of QOL of geriatric population.
| Facets | Total score | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensory abilities | 100 | 6.25 | 81.25 | 49.25 | 20.28 |
| Autonomy | 100 | 12.50 | 75.00 | 37.75 | 19.06 |
| Past, present, and future abilities | 100 | 6.25 | 81.25 | 32.81 | 20.95 |
| Social participation | 100 | 0.00 | 75.00 | 31.40 | 18.32 |
| Death and dying | 100 | 6.25 | 75.00 | 34.79 | 21.68 |
| Intimacy | 100 | 6.25 | 81.25 | 31.00 | 17.71 |
| Overall QOL | 100 | 6.25 | 78.12 | 36.17 | 19.67 |
Quality of life of the participants.
| Status | Numbers | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Good QOL | 158 | 48.2 |
| Poor QOL | 170 | 51.8 |
Association between sociodemographic characteristics and domains of quality of life among geriatric population.
| Variables | Sensory abilities | Autonomy | Past, present, and future abilities | Social participation | Death and dying | Intimacy | Overall facets | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| OR (C.I.) |
| OR (C.I.) |
| OR (C.I.) | p value | OR (C.I.) |
| OR (C.I.) |
| OR (C.I.) |
| OR (C.I.) | |
| Age | 0.493 | 0.85 (0.55–1.329) |
| 0.11 (0.04–0.29) |
| 0.08 (0.03–0.25) |
| 0.06 (0.15–0.28) |
| 0.36 (0.19–0.67) |
| 0.17 (0.06–0.47) |
| 0.07 (0.04–0.12) |
| Gender | 0.098 | 0.90 (0.43–1.07) |
| 0.40 (0.18–0.84) | 0.933 | 0.97 (0.5–1.88) | 0.056 | 0.43 (0.17–1.04) | 0.435 | 0.80 (0.47–1.38) | 0.068 | 0.59 (0.338–1.04) | 0.570 | 0.88 (0.56–1.36) |
| Ethnicity | 0.484 | 0.84 (0.53–1.34) | 0.670 | 1.15 (0.58–2.28) | 0.939 | 1.02 (0.51–2.03) | 0.789 | 1.11 (0.50–2.46) | 0.276 | 1.34 (0.78–2.29) | 0.414 | 0.79 (0.45–1.38) | 0.213 | 1.32 (0.84–2.07) |
| Religion Hindu/others | 0.968 | 1.01 (0.47–2.16) | 0.193 | 1.87 (0.71–4.91) | 0.06 | 2.36 (0.94–5.92) | 0.051 | 2.20 (0.97–4.98) | 0.018 | 3.13 (1.16–8.47) | 0.074 | 2.06 (0.91–4.65) | 0.107 | 1.86 (0.86–0.4) |
| Education status | 0.209 | 1.33 (0.84–2.11) |
| 3.95 (1.61–9.70) |
| 2.71 (1.21–6.09) |
| 3.772 (1.84–7.72) | 0.117 | 1.64 (0.87–3.08) |
| 2.54 (1.01–6.42) |
| 2.39 (1.49–3.84) |
| Past occupation | 0.765 | 0.935 (0.60–1045) | 0.205 | 1.52 (0.79–2.94) | 0.052 | 1.91 (0.98–3.69) | 0.881 | 1.04 (0.60–1.80) | 0.038 | 1.82 (1.02–3.24) | 0.089 | 1.91 (0.0.89–4.08) | 0.104 | 1.44 (0.92–2.23) |
p value significant at <0.05 based on the chi-square test.
Association between nutritional status and quality of life.
| Nutritional status | Quality of life | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Good QOL, | Poor QOL, |
| |
| Normal nutritional status | 103 (91.2) | 10 (8.8) | <0.001 |
| At risk of malnutrition | 48 (32.0) | 102 (68.0) | |
| Malnourished | 7 (10.8) | 58 (89.2) | |