4.3 Article

Privacy and Well-Being in Aged Care Facilities with a Crowded Living Environment: Case Study of Hong Kong Care and Attention Homes

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15102157

Keywords

privacy; well-being; elderly; aged care facilities; compact living

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51708282]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aims to understand the relationship between bedroom privacy and well-being of the elderly in aged care facilities with a compact living situation. A majority of studies on this topic were carried out in a low-density population context. The crowded living situation might compromise the well-being of residents. This study proposed five architectural parameters to measure bedroom privacy in aged care facilities: total open surface per unit, openness/solid ratio per bed, height of partition wall, number of people per unit, and personal control over bedroom privacy. SF-12 v.2 Health Survey was used to collect information on physical and mental health status. The study surveyed nine Care & Attention homes and their 213 residents in Hong Kong. The total open surface per unit and the openness/solid ratio per bed were positively associated with the physical health of residents. The height of partition walls was associated negatively with their physical and mental health conditions, and the number of people per unit was negatively associated with their physical health. More than half of respondents preferred a single unit with high partition walls; however, 40% of respondents preferred low partition walls. The provision of privacy for the elderly should be balanced with their needs for social interactions; total open surface per unit, openness/solid ratio per bed and height of partition wall should be taken into consideration. The study provides evidence and design guidelines for improving privacy in aged care facilities with a compact living environment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available