| Literature DB >> 34078277 |
Magnus Zingmark1,2, Fredrik Norström3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knowledge is scarce on how needs for home help and special housing evolve among older people who begin to receive support from municipal social care. The purpose of this study was to describe baseline distributions and transitions over time between levels of dependency among older persons after being granted social care in a Swedish municipality.Entities:
Keywords: Disablement process; Functional decline; Health promotion; Healthy ageing; Prevention; Reablement
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34078277 PMCID: PMC8173751 DOI: 10.1186/s12877-021-02283-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Geriatr ISSN: 1471-2318 Impact factor: 3.921
Definitions of dependency levels in relation to the type of allocated support
| Dependency level | Type of allocated supporta |
|---|---|
| Mild | Safety alarm, food distribution, domestic tasks, e.g., cleaning, washing, making the bed |
| Moderate | Help with bathing, social visits, safety contact by telephone, safety visits day time or night time, escort to activities outside the home |
| Severe | Dressing, transferring, practical help with meals, feeding |
| Total | Short or long term stay at special housing |
| Exclusion criteria | Support to informal caregivers, daily living supportb, day centre |
aExamples of types of support
ba type of support especially targeting persons with psychiatric disability
Fig. 1Flowchart for the inclusion of participants
Level of dependency at first decision on social care (n = 415)
| Dependency levela | % | Age (mean/median) | Women (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mild | 218 | 53 | 80/81 | 133 (61) |
| Moderate | 66 | 16 | 80/82 | 40 (61) |
| Severe | 99 | 24 | 80/82 | 61 (62) |
| Total | 32 | 7.7 | 81/82 | 13 (41) |
a Dependency levels according to Table 1
Dependency levels for first and second decision on social care (n = 354)
| Dependency level at second decision | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependency level at first decision | Noa | Mild | Moderate | Severe | Total | Deadb | Censoredc | In alld |
| Mild | 3 (1.7%) | 64 (37%) | 36 (21%) | 37 (22%) | 13 (7.6%) | 13 (7.6%) | 6 (3.5%) | 172 |
| Moderate | 0 | 8 (13%) | 28 (45%) | 17 (27%) | 6 (9.7%) | 2 (3.2%) | 1 (1.6%) | 62 |
| Severe | 2 (2.1%) | 12 (13%) | 16 (17%) | 46 (48%) | 8 (8.4%) | 3 (3.2%) | 8 (8.4%) | 95 |
| Total | 0 | 2 (8.0%) | 0 | 6 (24%) | 11 (44%) | 4 (16%) | 2 (8.0%) | 25 |
| In all | 5 | 86 | 80 | 106 | 38 | 22 | 17 | 354 |
a No dependency according to Table 1 in the second decision of support
b No second decision of support, dying during the follow-up period
c Among the home care recipients, there were 17 who had support of relatives and 3 with daily living support
d There were 61 home care recipients with only one decision of support at the end of the follow-up period
Dependency levels 1 year after first decision on social care (n = 415)
| Dependency level at 1 year | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependency level at first decision | Noa | Mild | Moderate | Severe | Total | Deadb | Censoredc |
| Mild ( | 2 (0.9%) | 138 (63%) | 23 (11%) | 29 (13%) | 11 (5.0%) | 10 (4.6%) | 5 (2.3%) |
| Moderate ( | 1 (1.5%) | 9 (14%) | 33 (50%) | 17 (26%) | 2 (3.0%) | 3 (4.5%) | 1 (1.5%) |
| Severe ( | 1 (1.0%) | 17 (17%) | 10 (10%) | 40 (40%) | 12 (12%) | 9 (9.1%) | 10 (10%) |
| Total ( | 0 | 1 (3.1%) | 1 (3.1%) | 4 (13%) | 18 (56%) | 6 (19%) | 2 (6.3%) |
| In all ( | 4 | 165 | 67 | 90 | 43 | 28 | 18 |
a No dependency according to Table 1 after 1 year
b Died during the first year
c Among the home care recipients, there were 18 who had support of relatives and two with daily living support
Fig. 2Survival function in relation to the first decision on social care for: a mild dependency (n = 133 women, 85 men), b moderate (n = 40 women, 26 men), c severe (n = 61 women, 38 men), d total dependency (n = 13 women, 19 men). Survival corresponds to the baseline dependency state or better; non-survival corresponds to a worsened state or death