| Literature DB >> 35564786 |
Ying Wang1,2, Di Lin1, Ze Huang1.
Abstract
As a result of aging populations globally, a growing number of older adults prefer to age in place; therefore, it is essential to study the spatial adaptability of the house. This study aimed to explore the relationship between the efficiency of daily activities and the spatial layout of home kitchens in the elderly population, and to assess the moderating role of cognitive function. Twenty-one elderly participants completed the experiment, including non-cognitively impaired (n = 12) and cognitively impaired groups (n = 9). Their home kitchen space was partitioned in plan and elevation based on space syntax theory. They were required to complete three tasks (i.e., an easy task, a medium task, and a difficult task) in their respective kitchens. The relationship between the efficiency of different tasks' completion and the corresponding kitchen space attributes (integration, mean depth) was examined. The results showed a significant association between the home kitchen space layout of homebound older adults and their kitchen activity efficiency. In addition, a positive moderating effect of cognitive ability was found in the association between moderate and difficult tasks (p < 0.05), and its effect appeared to be stronger under challenging tasks (p < 0.01). The results of this study may help provide a basis for future design and optimization of aging-friendly residential spaces.Entities:
Keywords: kitchen space; older adults; proper aging; space syntax
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35564786 PMCID: PMC9104308 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19095393
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Different kitchen types’ zoning diagram. (1) I-shaped kitchen. (2) L-shaped kitchen. (3) U-shaped kitchen. Kitchen space façade partition is defined as (A) washing area, (B) preparation area, and (C) cooking area. Kitchen space plane partition height is defined as (a) yellow zone: bending posture storage space height of 50 cm; (b) red zone: normal standing posture, the ideal counter height of 90 cm; (c) blue zone: high cabinet storage space height of 180 cm or more.
Figure 2Examples of different tasks in the kitchen.
Characteristic information of experimental participants.
| Variables | Non-Cognitive | Cognitive | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % | ||
| Gender | Male | 6 | 50.0 | 4 | 44.4 |
| Female | 6 | 50.0 | 5 | 55.6 | |
| Age | M(SD) | 69.2(2.31) | 75.1(3.18) | ||
| Education | Below middle school | 8 | 66.7 | 7 | 77.8 |
| middle school | 4 | 33.3 | 2 | 22.2 | |
| Number of | ≤1 | 6 | 50.0 | 6 | 66.7 |
| ≥2 | 6 | 50.0 | 3 | 33.3 | |
Figure 3Kitchen sample space layout analysis.
Mean depth and integration properties of different kitchens.
| Sample | Integration Value | Depth Value (M) | Sample | Integration Value | Depth Value (M) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | 1.37 | 2.69 | 12 | 1.04 | 3.06 |
| 02 | 0.99 | 3.50 | 13 | 1.35 | 2.71 |
| 03 | 1.60 | 2.61 | 14 | 1.31 | 2.68 |
| 04 | 1.76 | 2.58 | 15 | 1.52 | 2.65 |
| 05 | 1.69 | 2.50 | 16 | 1.49 | 2.91 |
| 06 | 1.38 | 2.53 | 17 | 1.31 | 2.79 |
| 07 | 1.67 | 2.54 | 18 | 1.44 | 2.83 |
| 08 | 1.49 | 2.98 | 19 | 1.12 | 2.99 |
| 09 | 1.64 | 2.58 | 20 | 1.52 | 2.77 |
| 10 | 1.35 | 2.70 | 21 | 1.59 | 2.70 |
| 11 | 1.39 | 2.61 |
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for task completion time.
| SS | Df | MS | F | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Between groups | 481,202.889 | 2 | 240,601.444 | 897.761 | <0.01 |
| Within group | 16,080.095 | 60 | 268.002 | ||
| Total | 0.299 | 62 |
Figure 4Mean value graph of task completion time for different groups.
Analysis of correlation between the different task completion times and spatial properties.
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. T1 | — | |||||
| 2. T2 | −0.147 | — | ||||
| 3. T3 | 0.299 | 0.564 ** | — | |||
| 4. Mean depth | −0.152 | −0.656 | −0.546 * | — | ||
| 5. Integration | 0.239 | 0.563 ** | 0.825 ** | 0.651 ** | — | |
| 6. MMSE | −0.121 | −0.589 ** | −0.869 ** | 0.659 ** | −0.886 ** | — |
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; Abbreviations: T1 = easy task completion time; T2 = medium task completion time; T3 = difficult task completion time; MMSE = Mini-Mental State Examination.
Differences in time to completion of different tasks between users in the non-cognitively impaired and cognitively impaired groups.
| Variables | Non-Cognitive | Cognitive Impairment | t | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |||
| T1 | 30.00 | 6.03 | 32.00 | 5.41 | −0.785 | 0.44 |
| T2 | 66.42 | 11.02 | 85.00 | 9.64 | −4.027 | <0.05 |
| T3 | 217.75 | 3.36 | 256.00 | 17.85 | −5.594 | <0.01 |
Abbreviations: T1 = easy task completion time; T2 = medium task completion time; T3 = difficult task completion time.
A stepwise multiple regression to estimate the association between integration, cognitive ability, and T2.
| Model | R | R2 | Adjusted R2 | F | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.563 | 0.317 | 0.281 | 8.817 | <0.01 |
| 2 | 0.596 | 0.355 | 0.284 | 4.959 | <0.05 |
1. Predictors: (Constant), Integration.; 2. Predictors: (Constant), integration, cognitive ability (MMSE); Abbreviations: T2 = medium task completion time.
A stepwise multiple regression to estimate the association between integration, mean depth, cognitive ability, and T3.
| Model | R | R2 | Adjusted R2 | F | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.546 | 0.298 | 0.261 | 8.078 | <0.05 |
| 2 | 0.832 | 0.693 | 0.659 | 20.315 | <0.01 |
| 3 | 0.883 | 0.780 | 0.741 | 20.118 | <0.01 |
1. Predictors: (Constant), mean depth; 2. Predictors: (Constant), mean depth, integration; 3. Predictors: (Constant), mean depth, integration, cognitive ability (MMSE); Abbreviations: T3 = difficult task completion time.