120 likes | 136 Views
This study aims to measure the quality of life in people aged 65+ in Britain and develop a new measure using face-to-face interviews. The main themes include social relationships, health, home, and psychological well-being. The study also examines the impact of good social connections on quality of life.
E N D
Older People’s Quality of Life Surveys A. Bowling et al. QoL C. Victor et al. LonelinessS Ebrahim et al. (MRC) Disability
Aims of studies • Measure QoL in people aged 65+ in Britain, • Develop & test new measure (OPQOL) in: 3 national face-to-face interview surveys of people aged 65+ in Britain: 999 r/s: 1999-2000, followed up 2007-8 586 r/s: 2007-8 400 ethnically diverse people 2007-8
Main QoL themes 1999-2000 • Social & family relationships • Social roles & activities • Health & functional ability • Home & neighbourhood • Psychological well-being & outlook • Income • Independence, control over one’s life ▼ Under-pinned the OPQOL 2007-8 surveys + religion, culture (2) prioritised by 4 ethnically diverse focus groups
‘Social relationships’: 81% said these gave quality to life: • ‘for companionship’ • ‘to do things with’ • ‘to take me out’ • ‘to make life bearable’ • ‘to know there is someone there willing to help me’ • ‘to look after me’ • ‘for ‘confidence’. • ….Oh, and my little cat. I talk to her a lot, she’s just like a little child. She doesn’t like being left alone, I love her to bits. Now and again I give her a little kiss.’
Good neighbours & family – ‘Four doors down the man called me to give me broad beans. When I did not put my washing line up he came round to see if there was any problem. The lady two doors down does my eye drops three times a week. They are all very good.’ ‘The quality of my life now is my family - my children and grandchildren. My life surrounds them. I go at weekends, they visit every week. Sometimes I have the younger grandchild staying overnight….. I’m there if they need me. ‘
Good friends • Emphasised in relation to providing company (e.g. mixing, conversation, self-esteem) - as opposed to providing practical help, which was a role identified mainly for relatives and neighbours.
Poor social relationships took quality away from live for 12%: Due to difficulties maintaining contacts or good relationships, often because of: • geographical distance • families ‘too busy’ to visit • family feuds (‘If only we could be friends with our children.’) • Ill health/difficulties getting out
Older people’s Quality of Life Questionnaire item 2007-8 11. I have someone who gives me love and affection Echinus ONS O/S QoL follow-up % % % Strongly agree 10 50 45 Agree 45 38 35 Neither agree nor disagree --- 5 13 Disagree 43 5 6 Strongly disagree 2 2 1
OPQOL items: health and desire for companionship 2007-8 8. ‘I am healthy enough to get out & about’ Strongly disagree/ Neither Agree/ Disagree Strongly agree % % % 10. ‘I would like more Companionship/ contact with other people’ Strongly agree/Agree 48 21 19*** Neither 32 57 43 Strongly disagree/Disagree 20 22 39
QOL & social support All surveys (1999-2000; 2007-8): The more supporters people had, the greater their chances of rating their QoL as good rather than not good. Other predictors of QoL were health and physical functioning, and self-efficacy (feeling ‘can do’).
QoL baseline survey. Adjusted (age, sex, NS-SEC) odds of rating: QoL as ‘good’ (1 referent) vs. ’not good’ (0) among:older people withsevere physical disability O.R. (95% CI) P Health compared to others same age Excellent to good 4.05 (1.89 to 8.70) ** vs. Fair -Poor Self efficacy/control over important things in life A lot of control5.36 (2.03 to 14.18) ** Some control 2.98 (1.24 to 7.18) * Little /no control Reference category Social support N Number of supporters (1 to 5) 1.64 (1.14 to 2.34) ** Age and Ageing, 36:310-315.
Odds ratios of predictors of perceived QoL (‘good’ vs. ’not good’ QoL) OPQOL scoresReferent 1 (all p<0.001) ONS sample (65+) QoL follow-up sample (74+) O.R. (95% CI) O.R. (95% CI) Follow-up: Unable to walk 400 yards without help or at all vs. rest 0.128 (0.070 – 0.236) 0.443 (0.312-0.631) Actual number of supporters who would help in a personal crisis 1.159 (1.062 – 1.265) 1.183 (1.070 – 1.308) Baseline: Self-efficacy High vs. rest N/A 3.449 (1.681 – 7.078) 1