5 1 - 21 24 PDF
5 1 - 21 24 PDF
5 1 - 21 24 PDF
Original article
were private. All the in-charge of these old age homes erly for that domain). Overall Quality of life was cal-
were contacted and permission regarding study was culated by sum of Sten scores of all four domains
obtained. MMSE instrument was applied on each eld- (Physical, Psychological, Social relationships, Envi-
erly people to check cognitive function. All the elderly ronmental) and converting it into scale of 0 – 100. Ob-
people living in OAHs gave consent to participate in tained Sten score (0-100) is further divided into 5 cate-
study, out of which 6 were excludedbecause they were gories to identify level of quality of life:
unable to get score ≥ 20 on MMSE instrument makinga
total 101 subjects in the study. Level of quality of life for the Sten Score
different categories
For assessment of facilities in OAHs inmates were
Very Poor 0-20
asked to rate the following services: Food, Medical
Poor 20-40
service, Recreational facilities, Safety, Space and Staff
Average (Neither poor nor good) 40-60
availability on Likert five point (1-5) scale separately.
Good 60-80
Very Poor =1 Very Good 80-100
Poor =2
Average (Neither poor nor good) =3
OBSERVATIONS
Good =4
Very Good =5 Among OAH residents overall a maximum of 37.6
percent elderly were in 70 - < 80 year age group (Old-
After that individuals were divided in two groups old) and a minimum of 28.7 percent in 60 - < 70 age
(Below average and Average & above). The study group (Young old).
was approved by the ethical review board of King
George Medical University prior to study. Descriptive
Table 1: Biosocial characteristics of elderly people
statistics for categorical variables were determined living in old age homes
and was analysed using the SPSS, version 17.0. Ap-
propriate tests were applied and the level of signifi- Characteristics Old Age Homes
cance was set at < 0.05. Public Private Total
(n=35)(%) (n=66)(%) (n=101)(%)
Tools of data collection: Type of elderly16
Young old 11 (31.4) 18 (27.3) 29 (28.7)
1. MMSE: Translated Hindi version of MMSE Old-old 16 (45.7) 22 (33.3) 38 (37.6)
instrument used in the study. MMSE was developed Oldest old 08 (22.9) 26 (39.4) 34 (33.7)
by (Folstien, et.al., 1975) 3.The MMSE has a maximum Sex
score of 30 points. The domains assessed are orienta- Male 17 (48.6) 37 (56.1) 54 (53.5)
tion to time and place (10 points), registration of three Female 18 (51.4) 29 (43.9) 47 (46.5)
words (3 points), attention and calculation (5 points), Religion
Hindu 35 (100.0) 65 (98.5) 100 (99.0)
recall of three words (3 points), language (8 points)
Muslim 00 (00) 01 (1.5) 01 (1.0)
and visual construction (1 point). The elderly who Sikh 00 (00) 00 (00) 00 (00)
scored ≥ 20 points on the scale were included in the Caste
study (Crum Rm et.al., 1993) 4. SC/ST 10 (28.6) 00 (00) 10 (9.9)
2. Socioeconomic Status: SES is classified OBC 11 (31.4) 07 (10.6) 18 (17.8)
through detailed assessment on, “A scale for the as- General 14 (40.0) 59 (89.4) 73 (72.3)
sessment of socioeconomic status'' (Tiwari et.al, 2005) 5 Marital Status
Unmarried 03 (8.6) 03 (4.5) 06 (5.9)
was used. There are 7 aspects investigated in the scale
Married 09 (25.7) 23 (34.8) 32 (31.7)
for determining the SES of a family or individ- Widow/Widower 20 (57.1) 35 (53.0) 55 (54.5)
ual.These aspects are: 1- House, 2- Material Posses- Divorce/Separated 03 (8.6) 05 (7.6) 08 (7.9)
sions, 3- Education, 4- Occupation,5- Economic Pro- Living Arrangement
file,6- PossessedLand/House cost and 7- Social profile. Only with Spouse 07 (20.0) 14 (21.2) 21 (20.8)
On SES scale maximum score which can be obtained is Living alone 28 (80.0) 49 (74.2) 77 (76.2)
70. The scores are categorized into five SES classes i.e. Others@ 00 (00.0) 03 (4.5) 03 (3.0)
scores 0 to 15: lower class, scores 15 to 30: Lower mid- Educational Profile
Illiterate 18 (51.4) 04 (6.1) 22 (21.8)
dle class, score 30 to 45: Middle class, score 45 to 60:
Primary pass 10 (28.6) 05 (7.6) 15 (14.9)
Upper middle class, score 60 to 70 upper class. 10th pass 04 (11.4) 08 (12.1) 12 (11.9)
3. WHOQOL- BREF: The WHOQOL-bref6,7,8,9is Graduate/diploma 02 (5.7) 27 (40.9) 29 (28.7)
a self-assessment instrument for assessment of quality Postgraduate and 01 (2.9) 22 (33.3) 23 (22.8)
of life in human being. Hindi version was used in the above
study it consists of 26 questions, divided into 4 do- Socio-Economic Status 5
mains, and includes two general questions about qual- Class I 00 (00.0) 01 (1.5) 01 (1.0)
Class II 00 (00.0) 06 (9.1) 06 (5.9)
ity of life (QOL). The questions of the different sec-
Class III 00 (00.0) 40 (60.6) 40 (39.6)
tions of the instrument use the Likert response Class IV 10 (28.6) 16 (24.2) 26 (25.7)
scale.The scores of all 4 domains were converted into Class V 25 (71.4) 03 (4.5) 28 (27.7)
Sten scores which lie between 0-100 (the higher the @ Living with family member other than spouse
score, the better is the supposed quality of life of eld-
Among elderly living in public OAH a maximum of life. Quality of life in private OAHs was significantly
45.7 percent elderly were in 70 - <80 years age group better (p>0.05) than in public OAHs with Cramer’s V=
while among those living in private OAH, a maximum 0.473 & Odds ratio = 10.50. [Table 4]
of 39.4 percent elderly were in ≥ 80 years age group
Services like medical services, recreational facilities,
(Oldest old). Among OAH’s elderly, 99.0 percent were
safety, space availability and staff availability were
Hindus and 72.3 percent belonged to general caste.
significantly better (p <0.05) in private type of OAHs.
Majority OAH residents were widow/widower
[Table 3]
(54.5%) followed by married (31.7%) and 76.2 percent
elderly were living alone followed by 20.8 percent liv-
ing with spouse. Majority of elderly of public OAHs
Table 2: Reasons of elderly for residing at Old Age
were illiterate (51.4%) followed by primary pass
Homes
(28.6%) pass and majority of private OAH’s elderly
were graduate/diploma pass (40.9%) followed by Reasons for residing at Type of old age home (n = 101)
postgraduate and above (33.3%). Majority of public Old Age Home* Public (%) Private (%) Total (%)
OAH’s residents were belonged to class V (71.4%) and Children do not support 06 (17.1) 13 (19.7) 19 (18.8)
majority of private OAH’s residents belonged to class Self-satisfaction 02 (5.7) 23 (34.8) 25 (24.8)
Misbehaviour of Daughter 04 (11.3) 11 (16.7) 15 (14.9)
III (60.6%) followed by class IV (24.2%). [Table 1]
in law
The most important reason for elderly people living in Death of spouse 04 (11.4) 10 (15.2) 14 (13.9)
public OAHs was no care taking person at home Economic Problem 04 (11.4) 02 (3.0) 06 (5.9)
To give service to GOD 00 (00.0) 01 (0.8) 01 (1.0)
(77.1%) followed by poverty (20.0%) and children do
No care taker at home 27 (77.1) 24 (36.4) 51 (50.5)
not support (17.1%).In case of private OAH most im- Poverty 07 (20.0) 00 (00.0 07 (6.9)
portant reason was no care taking person at home Health Problem 00 (00.0) 07 (10.6) 07 (6.9)
(36.4%) followed by self-satisfaction (34.8%) and Loneliness 01 (2.9) 21 (31.8) 22 (21.8)
loneliness (31.8%). [Table 2] Strained relation (other 03 (8.6) 04 (6.1) 07 (6.9)
than daughter in law)
In public type OAHs 85.7 percent inmates had quality Child settled abroad 00 (00.0) 04 (6.1) 04 (4.0)
of life below average whereas in paid OAHs 63.6 per- Other 01 (2.9) 01 (1.5) 02 (2.0)
cent inmates had average or above average quality of * Multiple responses