- Visibility 48 Views
- Downloads 12 Downloads
- DOI 10.18231/j.sajhp.2023.008
-
CrossMark
- Citation
Evaluation of an active focused intervention on the quality of life among elderly individuals in the slum areas of Thane district in India: An experimental field-based randomized clinical trial
Background
Demographic transition, improvement in the healthcare services, and advancement in the medical sciences contributed to increased prevalence of elderly population. In 2012 the elderly population in the world was 11% of the total population, which is expected to increase to 22% by 2050.[1] Elderly population pose a lot of challenges particularly they are neglected by their family members, lack of social security, and lack of emotional, physical and financial support.[2] As per the 2014 report on “Elderly abuse in India”, 50% of elderly people reported of having been abused by their family members.[3] A paradigm shift has happened in India where the traditional values particularly taking care of elderly at home has been abandoned due to rapid industrialization, urbanization and globalization. The elderly who have always been the support to their family until then, start feeling neglected, and start craving for love at this stage of their life leading to deterioration in the physical strength, poor financial condition, and consequently poor quality of life (QoL).[4] As expected, there is a steady rise in the old age dependency ratio (estimated as ratio of population above 60 years old to that of 15-59 years) was observed to be 0.14, and the old age economic dependency ratio was observed as 0.23.[5] This was reiterated by World Health Organization (WHO) that has stated that as people across the world live longer, increased risk/prevalence of chronic illness, and compromised well-being were observed as major challenges in the contemporary world.[6] Hence, we carried out the present study with the primary objective of assessing the impact of the special intervention on the QoL of elderly individuals residing in an urban slum area in a metropolitan city in India and to correlate the QOL with various socio-demographic factors.
Materials and Methods
Study design and ethics
The present study was a prospective study carried out in a slum area (Mira) in Mumbai, a metropolitan city in India. We used epidemiological two groups pre- and post-intervention test research design. The key epidemiological and health indicators of the Mira area are listed in Table 1. We carried out the study after obtaining approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee and consent from the study participants between January 2016 and November 2017. The study was carried out in adherence to the latest Declaration of Helsinki guidelines.
Study procedure
Those aged 60 years and above residing in the above-mentioned area for at least six months were included in this study after obtaining their consents. Those who were either bedridden or with serious illness were excluded. Following details were collected from the study participants: age, sex, education, occupation, monthly income, family background, beneficiary of any social security scheme, and concomitant disorders. The interventional group was provided a special attention that included the following:
Providing health check-up for two times at stipulated intervals with multi-disciplinary team and the required medicines,
Personalized counselling and referral to a specialist wherever necessary,
Facilitating the formation of area-wise clubs/social gatherings with identification of their team leaders and organizing meetings at least once a week; and liaison with community-based and non-governmental organizations.
Providing health education on geriatric care to the study participants and their family members and organizing orientation sessions addressing domestic violence, and
Distributing the information brochures regarding various social security measures.
More details about the intervention are provided in the Electronic Supplementary File.
Parameters |
Estimates |
|
Total population |
814655 |
|
Total numbers of primary health centres |
9 |
|
Total numbers of population above 60 years |
45497 |
|
Slum pockets affiliated to Nursing college for teaching training purpose (Names and individual populations) |
Penkarpada-97000 [study area] |
|
Kashigoan-78000 [control area] |
||
Health infrastructure (Public & private sectors) |
Tertiary level |
Public sector-1 |
Private sector- 5 |
||
Secondary level |
Public sector-1 |
|
Private sector- 135 |
||
Primary level |
Public sector-9 |
|
Private sector-10 |
||
Crude birth rate |
15.1/1000 population |
|
Crude death rate |
5.48/1000 live births |
|
Infant mortality rate |
12.9/1000 live births |
Variables |
Study group [n (%)] |
Control group [n (%)] |
Age group (Years) |
|
|
60 – 69 |
330 ( 77.46) |
345 (80.98) |
70 – 79 |
78(18.31) |
65(15.26) |
80 & above |
18 (4.23) |
16(3.76) |
Gender |
|
|
Female |
272(63.85) |
248(58.22) |
Education |
|
|
Non formal |
167(39.20) |
260(61.03) |
Primary |
75(17.61) |
51(11.98) |
Secondary |
160(37.56) |
105(24.65) |
Higher secondary |
17(3.99) |
6(1.41) |
Graduate & above |
7(1.64) |
4(0.93) |
Occupation |
|
|
Employed |
86(20.19) |
175(41.07) |
Housewife |
241(56.57) |
177(41.55) |
Unemployed |
99(23.24) |
74(17.38) |
Marital status |
|
|
Married |
298(69.95) |
310(72.77) |
Widow/widower |
120(28.18) |
108(25.35) |
Single |
3(0.70) |
8(1.88) |
Divorced |
5(1.17) |
0 |
Family income (Rs) |
|
|
<5000 |
48(11.27) |
108(25.35) |
5001-10000 |
224(52.58) |
191(44.83) |
10001-15000 |
95(22.30) |
75(17.61) |
>15000 |
59(13.85) |
|
Dependent on family member |
||
Yes |
336(78.87) |
262(61.50) |
Health care factors |
|
Study group [n (%)] |
Control group [n (%)] |
p-values |
Hospital facility available |
Government |
64(15.02) |
123(28.87) |
<0.0001 |
Private |
326(76.53) |
284(66.66) |
||
Both |
36(8.45) |
19(4.47) |
||
Accessibility (min) |
<30 |
336(78.87) |
334(78.41) |
0.87 |
30 & above |
90(21.13) |
92(21.59) |
||
Health Insurance |
Yes |
2(0.47) |
8(1.87) |
0.064 |
No |
424(99.53) |
418(98.13) |
QOL domain score |
Pre test |
Post test |
Wilcoxon Z Value |
P Value |
||
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
|||
Intervention group |
||||||
Physical |
41.08 |
12.01 |
59.85 |
7.64 |
16.99 |
<0.0001 |
Psychological |
41.46 |
11.94 |
69.53 |
9.47 |
17.24 |
<0.0001 |
Social |
36.51 |
14.98 |
60.37 |
11.44 |
17.07 |
<0.0001 |
Environmental |
41.11 |
10.27 |
61.94 |
6.46 |
17.04 |
<0.0001 |
Control group |
||||||
Physical |
48.28 |
8.09 |
48.54 |
8.94 |
0.66 |
0.51 |
Psychological |
46.07 |
9.59 |
46.43 |
9.76 |
0.79 |
0.43 |
Social |
42.94 |
11.83 |
43.29 |
11.57 |
1.24 |
0.22 |
Environmental |
43.43 |
8.48 |
43.67 |
8.76 |
0.96 |
0.34 |
QOL domain score |
Study group (n=426) |
Control group (n=426) |
MW test Z Value |
P Value |
||
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
|||
Pre-test |
||||||
Physical |
41.08 |
12.01 |
48.28 |
8.09 |
10.05 |
<0.0001 |
Psychological |
41.46 |
11.94 |
46.07 |
9.59 |
5.89 |
<0.0001 |
Social |
36.51 |
14.98 |
42.94 |
11.83 |
7.25 |
<0.0001 |
Environmental |
41.11 |
10.27 |
43.43 |
8.48 |
4.48 |
<0.0001 |
Post-test |
||||||
Physical |
59.85 |
7.64 |
48.54 |
8.94 |
16.06 |
<0.0001 |
Psychological |
69.53 |
9.47 |
46.43 |
9.76 |
22.08 |
<0.0001 |
Social |
60.37 |
11.44 |
43.29 |
11.57 |
16.76 |
<0.0001 |
Environmental |
61.94 |
6.46 |
43.67 |
8.76 |
21.77 |
<0.0001 |
Variables |
Study group |
Control group |
P-values |
|
Age categories |
||||
60 – 69 years |
330 |
345 |
0.44 |
|
70 – 79 years |
78 |
65 |
||
80 years & above |
18 |
16 |
||
Gender |
||||
Male |
154 |
178 |
0.09 |
|
Female |
272 |
248 |
||
Education |
||||
Illiterate |
167 |
260 |
0.0001* |
|
Primary |
75 |
51 |
||
Secondary |
160 |
105 |
||
Higher secondary |
17 |
6 |
||
Graduate & above |
7 |
4 |
||
Occupation |
||||
Employed/pensioner |
168 |
223 |
0.0001* |
|
Unemployed |
258 |
203 |
||
Marital status |
||||
Married |
298 |
310 |
0.04* |
|
Widow/widower |
120 |
108 |
||
Single |
3 |
8 |
||
Divorced |
5 |
0 |
||
Family income (INR) |
||||
<5000 |
48 |
108 |
0.0001* |
|
5001-10000 |
224 |
191 |
||
10001-15000 |
95 |
75 |
||
>15000 |
59 |
52 |
||
Self earning |
||||
Yes |
108 |
182 |
0.0001* |
|
No |
318 |
244 |
||
Dependent on family member |
||||
Yes |
336 |
262 |
0.0001* |
|
No |
90 |
164 |
||
Health care factors |
||||
Hospital facility available |
Government Private Both |
64 326 36 |
123 284 19 |
0.0001* |
Accessibility (min) |
<30 30 & above |
336 90 |
334 92 |
0.87 |
Health Insurance |
Yes No |
2 424 |
8 418 |
0.064 |
Concomitant illnesses |
||||
Diabetes |
88 |
65 |
0.039* |
|
Hypertension |
130 |
90 |
0.0016* |
|
Heart Disease |
34 |
8 |
0.0001* |
|
Stroke |
9 |
3 |
0.08 |
|
Respiratory disorders |
16 |
30 |
0.033* |
|
Urinary disorders |
2 |
1 |
0.56 |
|
Arthritis |
22 |
59 |
0.0001* |
|
Cancer |
5 |
1 |
0.10 |
|
Musculo skeletal diseases |
91 |
90 |
0.93 |
|
Cataract |
56 |
4 |
0.0001* |
|
Other Illness |
88 |
87 |
0.93 |
|
|
|
|
WHOQOL Domain(Mean) |
|||
Author |
Place |
Year |
Sample Size |
Physical |
Psychological |
Social |
Environmental |
Present study |
Thane, India |
2019 |
852 |
48.28 |
46.07 |
42.94 |
43.43 |
Kumar et al.[7] |
Delhi, India |
2014 |
273 |
37.3 |
45.13 |
28.47 |
37.76 |
Hariprasad et al.[8] |
Bangalore, India |
2013 |
120 |
52.21 |
55.73 |
55.42 |
68.74 |
Mudey et al. [9] |
Wardha, India |
2011 |
400 |
50.97 |
51.14 |
59.39 |
60.28 |
Farajzadeh et al. [10] |
Iran |
2016 |
425 |
65 |
58.68 |
64.36 |
65.86 |
Barua et al. [11] |
Manipal, India |
2007 |
70 |
51.2 |
51.3 |
55.9 |
57.1 |
Paul et al. [12] |
Vellore, India |
2017 |
140 |
37.4 |
35.7 |
36.2 |
37.5 |
Varun et al. [13] |
Haridwar, India |
2017 |
35 |
52.6 |
57.2 |
47.5 |
65.9 |
The investigator team approached the study site for obtaining permission and consent from the study participants during the first two visits. From the third visit, the special intervention package was carried out in the intervention group at various stages. During the initial stages, clubs (20 subjects in 1 club) were formed (overall 21 clubs were formed) and the club meetings were facilitated with a total of 12 meetings organized. In the third stage, health checkup camps, and referrals were done. The forth session was the orientation session to the study participants in which orientation to CBOs/SHGs/NGOs (3 times) was provided on topics related to domestic violence, social security, and legal provisions. The fifth session was on the health education on geriatric care to the study participants and their family members that was associated with distribution of brochures. After the fifth session, monitoring and supervision was done in the intervention group every fortnightly. The control group was not provided any of the active intervention other than the standard of care. A pre-validated WHOQoL-BREF questionnaire was used for assessing the QoL that consisted of 26 test items structured under four domains namely, physical, psychological, social and environmental. Raw scores were calculated and were transformed using the following formula: {(actual raw score – least possible raw score)/possible raw score range} X 100. The scale was administered baseline, and after 18 months of providing the intervention.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics were used for representing demographic variables. Numerical variables were tested for their distributions and non-parametric tests were used. The categorical variables were evaluated using Chi-square or Fisher exact probability test. The sample size was calculated with the following estimates: alpha error - 5%, power - 80%, mean difference - 59.2, standard deviation of 11.87, and anticipated drop-out of 20%, and was observed to be 426 per group. P-values of < 0.05 were considered significant. SPSS version 22 was used for statistical analysis.
All parameters are expressed in numbers (n) unless specified otherwise.
Results
Demographics
Mean ages of study participants were 64.87 and 64 years in the intervention and control groups. A summary of the demographic characteristics of the study population is listed in [Table 2] wherein majority of them were in the age group of 60-69 years, without formal education, housewives, and economically dependent on their family members. Regarding the health care factors, only the availability of hospital facility was significantly different between the groups with more participants in the intervention group availing private hospitals/clinics and majority did not have any health insurance ([Table 3]). Significantly more participants in the interventional group were had at least one concomitant disorder (intervention group: 311, 73%; control group: 281, 65.97%).
WHO QoL-BREF scores
Internal consistencies as evaluated by Cronbach’s alpha ranged between 0.64 and 0.75, thus demonstrating a good reliability. The QoL scores across all domains were significantly greater post-intervention in the intervention group but not in the control group ([Table 4]). At baseline, baseline QoL scores were significantly (p = 0.001) lower in the intervention group ([Table 5]). Post-intervention (at 18th month) QoL scores were significantly greater in the intervention group compared but not in the control group ([Table 5]). Literacy, occupation, marital status, monthly income, self earning status, family dependence, access to private hospitals, and concomitant illnesses such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, respiratory disorders, arthritis, and cataract were the factors significantly different between the groups ([Table 6]).
Discussion
Statement of key findings
The present study evaluated the QoL and the determining factors in elderly individuals living in a metropolitan city in India. Additionally, a special intervention was provided and its effect on QoL was assessed in comparison to the control group that did not receive the intervention. The QoL scores across all domains were significantly greater post-intervention in the intervention group but not in the control group. Literacy, occupation, marital status, monthly income, self earning status, family dependence, access to private hospitals, and concomitant illnesses such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, respiratory disorders, arthritis, and cataract were the factors significantly different between the groups.
Comparison with other studies
The current study assessed the effect of specially devised intervention package on quality of life among senior citizens. The results showed a statistically significant difference between pre intervention and post intervention score of WHO physical, psychological, environmental and social quality of life score in the study group. This confirmed that the difference in pre intervention and post-test mean score of WHO quality of life score in the study group is a real difference and not by chance. This supports the effectiveness of the intervention package in improving the score of quality of life (all four domains) of senior citizens in the study group. We observed that the intervention group had significantly greater QoL compared to control group. Key studies addressing a similar hypothesis are summarized in [Table 7] Although the findings were similar to several other studies, those carried out in Iran and in another metropolitan city (Bangalore) revealed a slightly better QoL. Various interventions have been explored for improving the QoL of elderly individuals. A study conducted in Japan by Kamegaya et al. through a randomized controlled trial has shown that a twelve-week physical and leisure activity programtin improving the cognitive function in community-dwelling elderly subjects.[14] Hariprasad et al. in 2013 evaluated the effects of yoga intervention on quality of life and sleep in the elderly after a period of six month.[8] The authors in that study observed a significant improvement in the QoL across all domains and sleep. Similarly, Kumar et al. in 2014 through a randomized controlled trial have shown that a novel occupational therapy could improve the QoL of elderly following five weeks of intervention.[15] We observed that with an advancing age the score of the QOL decrease significantly in all domains in all domains. Contrary to the present study, Kumar P et al.[7] who have evaluated the elderly living in an urban area in 2013 observed that older age was associated with a poor QoL. This possibly could be attributed to the differences in the physical, psychological and social changes and due to altered immunity amongst the elderly.[16]
Strengths and limitations
The sample size was sufficiently large (and adequate) compared to several previous studies leading to a better confidence on the obtained results. However, the study is limited in not having a long term follow up with the study participants, and there was no follow up to evaluate the changes in QoL.
Conclusion
The present study estimated the QoL amongst elderly individuals living in a metropolitan city in Indian subcontinent. We have also observed that a special intervention package resulted in improvement of physical, psychological, social and environmental domains of QoL in the elderly population. Certain factors were also identified to be significantly associated with the QoL that needs to be validated in prospective studies.
Source of Funding
None.
Conflict of Interest
None.
References
- . Ageing and health. . [Google Scholar]
- M Mafauzy. The problems and challenges of the aging population of Malaysia. Malays J Med Sci 2000. [Google Scholar]
- M Mafauzy. The problems and challenges of the aging population of Malaysia. . Malays J Med Sci 2000. [Google Scholar]
- K Lalitha, G Suman, C Priyadarshini, S Nandagudi. Quality of life (QOL) among older persons in an urban and rural area of Bangalore, South India. J Fam Med Primary Care 2021. [Google Scholar]
- JA Geethu, SB Nair. Elderly dependency in India: Findings from census data. Int J Adv Res 2021. [Google Scholar]
- . Ageing Well Must Be a Global Priority. 2014. [Google Scholar]
- VR Hariprasad, PT Sivakumar, V Koparde, S Varambally, J Thirthalli, M Varghese. Effects of yoga intervention on sleep and quality-of-life in elderly: A randomized controlled trial. Indian J Psychiatry 2013. [Google Scholar]
- SS Paul, PH Ramamurthy, R Kumar, M Ashirvatham, KR John, R Isaac. Seniors' Recreation Centers in Rural India: Need of the Hour. Indian J Commun Med 2016. [Google Scholar]
- V Toshniwal. Effectiveness of planned activities on quality of life of elderly living in old age home. Int J Sci Res 2017. [Google Scholar]
- A Barua, R Mangesh, HN Kumar, M Saajan. Assessment of the domains of quality of life in the geriatric population. Indian J Psychiatry 2005. [Google Scholar]
- A Mudey, S Ambekar, RC Goyal, S Agarekar, VV Wagh. Assessment of Quality of Life among Rural and Urban Elderly Population of Wardha District. India Stud on Ethno-Med 2011. [Google Scholar]
- SG Kumar, A Majumdar. Quality of Life (QOL) and its associated factors using WHOQOL-BREF Among Elderly in Urban Puducherry, India. J Clin Diagn Res 2014. [Google Scholar]
- M Farajzadeh, MS Ghanei, R Gheshlagh, K Sayehmiri. Health Related Quality of Life in Iranian Elderly Citizens: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Commun Based Nurs Midwifery 2017. [Google Scholar]
- T Kamegaya, Y Araki, H Kigure. Long-Term-Care Prevention Team of Maebashi City, Yamaguchi H. Twelve-week physical and leisure activity programme improved cognitive function in community-dwelling elderly subjects: a randomized controlled trial. Psychogeriatrics 2014. [Google Scholar]
- P Kumar, SC Tiwari, A Goel, V Sreenivas, N Kumar, RK Tripathi. Novel occupational therapy interventions may improve quality of life in older adults with dementia. Int Arch Med 2014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- JE Graham, LM Christian, JK Kiecolt-Glaser. Stress, age, and immune function: toward a lifespan approach. J Behav Med 2006. [Google Scholar]