| Literature DB >> 34205565 |
Keisuke Fujii1, Yuya Fujii2, Yuta Kubo3, Korin Tateoka4, Jue Liu4, Koki Nagata5, Shuichi Wakayama6, Tomohiro Okura7,8.
Abstract
We clarified the relationship between occupational dysfunction and social isolation among community-dwelling adults. We used a self-administered questionnaire with a cross-sectional study for 2879 independently living older adults in Kasama City, Japan. Participants responded to a self-reported questionnaire in November 2019. Occupational dysfunction and social isolation were assessed. The participants were classified into two groups: healthy occupational function group, and occupational dysfunction group. To examine the relationship between occupational dysfunction and social isolation, we performed a logistic regression analysis with social isolation as a dependent variable and occupational dysfunction as an independent variable. In the crude model, the occupational dysfunction group had a higher risk of social isolation than the healthy occupational function group (odds ratio (OR) = 2.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.63-2.55; p < 0.001). In the adjusted model, the occupational dysfunction group had a higher risk of social isolation than the healthy occupational function group (OR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.17-1.94; p = 0.001). The results showed that occupational dysfunction was significantly associated with social isolation. These results can be used in constructing a support method for social isolation from a new perspective.Entities:
Keywords: occupational function; occupational therapy; social isolation; social network
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34205565 PMCID: PMC8296447 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18126648
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Participant flowchart.
Participants’ characteristics.
| Characteristic | Healthy Occupational Function Group | Occupational | |
|---|---|---|---|
| %( | %( | ||
| Age (years), Mean ± SD | 72.6 ± 5.2 | 72.7 ± 5.6 | 0.795 |
| Female, %( | 49.3 (1202) | 46.2 (204) | 0.220 |
| Household (living alone), %( | 12.7 (310) | 12.7 (56) | 0.976 |
| Educational background (≧high school), %( | 84.1 (2030) | 77.8 (339) | 0.001 |
| Subjective economic status (poor), %( | 17.0 (413) | 31.9 (553) | |
| IADL ability (disability), %( | 7.4 (181) | 7.9 (35) | 0.718 |
| K6 (score), Mean ± SD | 2.8 ± 3.0 | 6.2 ± 4.0 | |
| Social isolation, %( | 18.4 (448) | 31.5 (139) | |
| CAOD (score), Mean ± SD | 30.0 ± 10.5 | 60.6 ± 7.1 | |
| Occupational imbalance (score), Mean ± SD | 7.5 ± 3.8 | 14.8 ± 3.8 | |
| Occupational deprivation (score), Mean ± SD | 6.2 ± 3.2 | 12.8 ± 2.7 | |
| Occupational alienation (score), Mean ± SD | 6.4 ± 3.4 | 12.1 ± 2.8 | |
| Occupational marginalization (score), Mean ± SD | 9.9 ± 3.8 | 20.8 ± 3.8 |
SD: standard deviation; IADL: instrumental activities of daily living; CAOD: classification and assessment of occupational dysfunction.
Association between occupational dysfunction and social isolation.
| Crude Model | Adjusted Model | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95%CI | OR | 95%CI | |||
| Healthy occupational function group | Ref. | Ref. | ||||
| Occupational dysfunction group | 2.04 | 1.63–2.55 | 1.51 | 1.17–1.94 | 0.001 | |
OR: odds ratio, CI: confidence interval, Ref: reference. Adjusted model was adjusted for age, sex, household, educational background, subjective economic status, instrumental activities of daily living, and mental health.
Association classification in the relationship between occupational dysfunction and social isolation.
| Occupational Dysfunction Type | Crude Model | Adjusted Model | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95%CI | OR | 95%CI | |||
| Occupational imbalance | 1.01 | 0.99–1.03 | 0.248 | 0.93 | 0.90–0.96 | |
| Occupational deprivation | 1.10 | 1.08–1.13 | 1.03 | 0.99–1.06 | 0.134 | |
| Occupational alienation | 1.15 | 1.12–1.78 | 1.10 | 1.06–1.13 | ||
| Occupational marginalization | 1.07 | 1.05–1.09 | 1.04 | 1.01–1.07 | 0.003 | |
OR: odds ratio, CI: confidence interval. Adjusted model was adjusted for age, sex, household, educational background, subjective economic status, instrumental activities of daily living, mental health, and other types of occupational dysfunction.