Get Permission Parab, Parab, and Velhal: 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:

  1. Providing health check-up for two times at stipulated intervals with multi-disciplinary team and the required medicines,

  2. Personalized counselling and referral to a specialist wherever necessary,

  3. 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.

  4. Providing health education on geriatric care to the study participants and their family members and organizing orientation sessions addressing domestic violence, and

  5. Distributing the information brochures regarding various social security measures.

More details about the intervention are provided in the Electronic Supplementary File.

Table 1

Key epidemiological and health indicators of the Mira region.

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

Table 2

Demographic characteristics of study participants.

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)

Table 3

Health care factors among the study population.

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)

Table 4

Comparison ofQoL scores in the intervention and control groups.

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

Table 5

Comparison ofQoL scores between the intervention and control groups.

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

Table 6

Distribution of variables between the groups.

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

Table 7

Key studies evaluating theQoL in elderly individuals.

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

2 

M Mafauzy The problems and challenges of the aging population of MalaysiaMalays J Med Sci20007113

3 

M Mafauzy The problems and challenges of the aging population of Malaysia. Malays J Med Sci20007113

4 

K Lalitha G Suman C Priyadarshini S Nandagudi Quality of life (QOL) among older persons in an urban and rural area of Bangalore, South IndiaJ Fam Med Primary Care20211012727

5 

JA Geethu SB Nair Elderly dependency in India: Findings from census dataInt J Adv Res2021927992

7 

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 trialIndian J Psychiatry201355336472

8 

SS Paul PH Ramamurthy R Kumar M Ashirvatham KR John R Isaac Seniors' Recreation Centers in Rural India: Need of the HourIndian J Commun Med201641321941

9 

V Toshniwal Effectiveness of planned activities on quality of life of elderly living in old age homeInt J Sci Res2017616870

10 

A Barua R Mangesh HN Kumar M Saajan Assessment of the domains of quality of life in the geriatric populationIndian J Psychiatry200547315766

11 

A Mudey S Ambekar RC Goyal S Agarekar VV Wagh Assessment of Quality of Life among Rural and Urban Elderly Population of Wardha DistrictIndia Stud on Ethno-Med2011528993

12 

SG Kumar A Majumdar Quality of Life (QOL) and its associated factors using WHOQOL-BREF Among Elderly in Urban Puducherry, IndiaJ Clin Diagn Res2014815461

13 

M Farajzadeh MS Ghanei R Gheshlagh K Sayehmiri Health Related Quality of Life in Iranian Elderly Citizens: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisInt J Commun Based Nurs Midwifery20175210011

14 

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 trialPsychogeriatrics20141414754

15 

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 dementiaInt Arch Med201472610.1186/1755-7682-7-26

16 

JE Graham LM Christian JK Kiecolt-Glaser Stress, age, and immune function: toward a lifespan approachJ Behav Med2006294389400



jats-html.xsl


This is an Open Access (OA) journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

  • Article highlights
  • Article tables
  • Article images

Article History

Received : 10-04-2023

Accepted : 27-05-2023


View Article

PDF File   Full Text Article


Copyright permission

Get article permission for commercial use

Downlaod

PDF File   XML File   ePub File


Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

Article DOI

https://doi.org/ 10.18231/j.sajhp.2023.008


Article Metrics






Article Access statistics

Viewed: 687

PDF Downloaded: 242