| Literature DB >> 34063316 |
Mohammed A Alqarni1, Khurshid Mattoo2, Surbhi Dhingra3, Suheel Manzoor Baba1, Fuad Al Sanabani2, Bandar M A Al Makramani2, Hadeel Mohammed Akkam2.
Abstract
Healthcare workers have reported a certain segment of geriatric patients that are suffering from abuse/neglect, which in turn has been associated with anxiety, depression, and helplessness in the individual. Family caregivers (blood relations), being the most common perpetrators of elder abuse and neglect (EAN), have also been shown to respond to sensitization if the type of EAN and the interventions are appropriate. This study was aimed to comparatively analyze the influence of intervention (psychotherapeutic sensitization of FCG) upon long-term (24 months) treatment maintenance and satisfaction in elderly neglected patients. One hundred and fifty patients (aged 41-80 years) suffering from elder neglect (EN) (self-confession) and their respective FCGs, fulfilling the study criteria, participated in this longitudinal 2-year study. The patients were randomly distributed (simple random, convenient) in two equal groups (75 each), namely Group (GP) A (control) and GP B (test). A standardized, complete denture treatment was initiated for all the participants. Both the FCGs and the patients of GP B were sensitized (psychotherapeutic education) for EN, while there was no such intervention in GP A. The influence of such intervention was measured for denture maintenance [denture plaque index (DPI) scores] and treatment satisfaction (10-point visual analog scale). Absolute/relative frequencies and means were major calculations during data analysis. Differences between the groups for any treatment compliance parameter was done through the unpaired t-test, while Karl Pearson's test determined the level of relationship between variables (p-value < 0.05). Decrease in mean DPI scores (suggesting improvement) was seen among patients in GP A from 1 month (m = 2.92) to 24 months (m = 2.77). A negligible increase in DPI scores was observed among patients of GP B from 1 month (m = 1.38) to 24 months (m = 1.44). Differences in mean values between the two groups were statistically significant at 24-month intervals, while the relationship between the variables was nonsignificant. FCG sensitization through psychotherapeutic education shows a long-term positive influence on the treatment compliance (maintenance and satisfaction). Identifying the existence of EAN among geriatric patients, followed by psychotherapeutic education of FCGs is recommended for routine medical and dental long-duration treatment procedures.Entities:
Keywords: abuse; caregivers neglect; compliance; elder maltreatment; patient education
Year: 2021 PMID: 34063316 PMCID: PMC8147452 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare9050533
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthcare (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9032
Group comparison of sociodemographic characteristic distribution in the studied groups.
| Characteristic | Parameter | Total Subjects | Sample Subjects (N/%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | Group B | ||||
| Gender distribution | Male | 128 (85.33) | 64 (85.33) | 64 (85.33) | |
| Female | 22 (14.67) | 11 (14.67) | 11 (14.67) | ||
| Age distribution | Elderly | 41–50 | 4 (2.67) | 1 (1.33) | 3 (4) |
| 51–60 | 58 (38.66) | 26 (34.66) | 32 (42.67) | ||
| 61–70 | 46 (30.66) | 26 (34.66) | 20 (26.67) | ||
| 71–80 | 42 (28) | 22 (29.33) | 20 (26.67) | ||
| Family caregiver | ≤20 | 11 (7.34) | 5 (6.67) | 6 (8) | |
| 21–30 | 75 (50) | 31 (41.33) | 44 (58.6) | ||
| 31–40 | 54 (36) | 34 (45.33) | 20 (26.67) | ||
| 41–50 | 6 (4) | 4 (5.3) | 2 (2.66) | ||
| ≥51 | 4 (2.66) | 1 (1.33) | 3 (4) | ||
| Type of abuse | Neglect | 110 (73.34) | 59 (78.66) | 51 (68) | |
| Combination (neglect + one or more) | 40 (26.66) | 16 (21.33) | 24 (32) | ||
| Education | Elderly | Illiterate | 130 (86.67) | 62 (82.67) | 68 (90.67) |
| Literate | 20 (13.33) | 13 (17.33) | 7 (9.33) | ||
| Family caregiver | Illiterate | 116 (77.33) | 57 (76) | 59 (78.67) | |
| Literate | 34 (22.67) | 18 (24) | 16 (21.34) | ||
| Family caregiver (Types) | Son | 83 (55.33) | 41 (54.66) | 42 (56) | |
| Daughter in law | 49 (32.66) | 26 (34.66) | 23 (30.6) | ||
| Spouse | 14 (9.33) | 8 (10.67) | 6 (8) | ||
| Sibling | 2 (1.33) | 0 (0) | 2 (2.66) | ||
| Others | 2 (1.33) | 0(0) | 2 (2.66) | ||
| Income of family caregiver * | Low | 116 (77.34) | 56 (74.6) | 50 (66.67) | |
| Average | 32 (21.33) | 12 (16) | 20 (26.67) | ||
| High | 12 (8) | 7 (9.34) | 5 (6.67) | ||
| Self-rated health | Elderly | Unhealthy | 18 (12) | 3 (4) | 15 (20) |
| Healthy | 132 (88) | 72 (96) | 60 (80) | ||
| Family caregiver | Unhealthy | 11 (7.33) | 5 (6.66) | 6 (8) | |
| Healthy | 139 (92.67) | 70 (93.33) | 69 (92) | ||
N—Number of subjects; %—Value expressed in terms of percentage within parenthesis; *—Income described as per World Bank country classification (Atlas method).
Frequency distribution of various grades of DPI (denture plaque index) scores with means compared among subjects of both groups.
| Frequency DistributionN (%) | Mean ± SD | Unpaired “ | Karl Pearsons | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S.No. | Scores | GP A (Control) | GP B (Test) | GP A (Control) | GP B (Test) | ||||||
| 1 M | 24 M | 1 M | 24 M | 1 M | 24 M | 1 M | 24 M | Probable Value | (r) | ||
| 1 | Good | 4 (5.3) | 9 (12) | 52 (69.33) | 50 (66.67) | 2.92 ± 0.892 | 2.77 ± 0.887 | 1.38 ± 0.618 | 1.44 ± 1.187 | 0.0000 * | −0.0012 (NS) |
| 2 | Average | 23 (30.6) | 20 (26.67) | 18 (24) | 18 (24) | ||||||
| 3 | Poor | 27 (36) | 26 (34.67) | 5 (6.67) | 7 (9.33) | ||||||
| 4 | Very Poor | 21 (28) | 20 (26.67) | 0 (0) | 0 | ||||||
Abbreviations: N = Number, M = number of months, SD = Standard deviation, % = percentage, GP (Group); * denotes statistically significant differences between two groups at the value of (p < 0.05); NS = not significant. In the unpaired ‘t’ test the level of the degree of significance was determined on the value of p ˂ 0. 05. Degree of linear relationship between two variables was determined by the Karl Pearson correlation coefficient expressed as r.
Comparative differences in means among various parameters for denture satisfaction at two different intervals of time between the studied groups.
| S.No. | Denture Parameters | GP A (Control) | GP B (Test) | Unpaired “ | Karl Pearsons Correlation Coefficient | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Probable Value | R Value | ||
| 1. | Movement maxillary denture | 4.69 ± 1.286 | 5.50 ± 1.674 | 8.39 ± 0.658 | 8.04 ± 0.875 | 0.0000 * | 0.1614 |
| 2. | Comfort maxillary denture | 4.84 ± 1.372 | 5.41 ± 0.988 | 7.96 ± 0.918 | 8.25 ± 0.978 | 0.0000 * | 0.1451 |
| 3. | Movement mandibular denture | 4.24 ± 1.031 | 4.06 ± 1.183 | 8.39 ± 0.658 | 7.48 ± 1.122 | 0.0000 * | 0.0211 * |
| 4. | Comfort mandibular denture | 4.64 ± 1.245 | 5.49 ±1.198 | 7.96 ± 0.918 | 8.36 ± 1.143 | 0.0000 * | 0.1275 |
| 5. | Speech | 5 ± 1.118 | 5.4 ± 0.882 | 8.21 ± 0.780 | 8.24 ± 1.114 | 0.0000 * | 0.1244 |
| 6. | Ease of chewing | 4.72 ± 1.125 | 5.3 ± 1.113 | 7.36 ± 0.895 | 7.85 ± 1.078 | 0.0000 * | 0.0388 * |
| 7. | Esthetics | 5.15 ± 1.121 | 4.64 ± 1.087 | 8.51 ± 0.667 | 8.34 ± 1.121 | 0.0000 * | 0.0126 * |
| 8. | General Satisfaction | 5.03 ± 1.103 | 4.09 ± 1.112 | 7.90 ± 0.630 | 8.46 ± 0.786 | 0.0000 * | 0.0473 * |
Abbreviation: GP = Group, SD = standard deviation, M = number of months; S: significance level (p < 0.05); *: indicates significant differences. In the unpaired “t” test the level of the degree of significance was determined on the value of p ˂ 0. 05. Degree of linear relationship between two variables determined by the Karl Pearson correlation coefficient expressed as r.
Figure 1Graphical comparisons among various parameters of treatment satisfaction between the studied groups.
Outline of home care instructions (for elderly patient and FCG) to sustain the influence of psychotherapeutic education for the long term.
| 1. FCG must assist/enquire/plan for the elderly patient’s daily activities (minimum of once/day). |
| 2. The FCG must plan and organize the caregiving responsible distribution among his/her family members. |
| 3. The FCG must encourage the patient to have a healthy lifestyle that includes self-care, adhering to treatment, and adhering to and following post-insertion instructions. |
| 4. The FCG must remind/give/provide medications for the elderly if and when desired. |
| 5. Any medical/dental equipment/ tool (such as diabetic kit, blood pressure unit) should be operated by the FCG him- or herself. |
| 7. The FCG must facilitate family understanding and remove conflicts within/outside the family, or family members including relatives, friends and neighbors. |
| 8. The FCG must at all times be the one who will communicate with the concerned doctor as part of the long-term maintenance. |
| 9. The FCG must sit with the elderly patient and facilitate the patient’s understanding regarding complex post-treatment instructions. |
| 10. The FCG must arrange or make all necessary appointments with the concerned healthcare workers. |
| 11. The FCG must try to negotiate with other caregivers within the family and describe their roles on a daily/weekly/ monthly/ annual basis. |
| 12. The elderly patient must at all times appreciate the concerns raised by the FCG. |
| 13. The elderly patient must surrender his/her will and not dictate things that are related to the treatment care. |
| 14. The elderly patient must disclose his/her difficulties to the FCG either directly or indirectly. |
| 15. The elderly patient must allow the FCG to take/make decisions on his/her behalf. |
| 16. The elderly patient must at all times takes positive steps to initiate self-care rather than wait for someone to provide the care. |