Docstoc

Older People's Quality of Life Questionnaire _OPQOL_

Document Sample
Older People's Quality of Life Questionnaire _OPQOL_ Powered By Docstoc
					Older People’s Quality of Life Surveys

         A. Bowling et al. QoL

        C. Victor et al. Loneliness

      S 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 with severe 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 control                                5.36 (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 scores Referent 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)

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:11/23/2011
language:English
pages:12