4.1 Article

Gender differences in predictors of survival in elderly nursing-home residents: a 3-year follow up

Journal

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF CARING SCIENCES
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages 18-24

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2007.00431.x

Keywords

activities of daily living; gender; malnutrition; nursing care; pneumonia; survival

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study focus on predicting factors of survival possible to modify by nursing care, and the incidence and mortality rate of nursing-home-acquired pneumonia, allocated to 1, 2 and 3 years of follow ups. The residents consisted of 156 women and 78 men living in special housing for the elderly. Data on chronic disease and medication were obtained at baseline, and activities of daily living (ADL) status, nutritional status and body temperature were assessed. The incidence of pneumonia was noted prospectively for 1 year and retrospectively for the following 2 years. Predictive factors for survival were explored by Cox hazard regression analysis. The results showed that age, functional and cognitive impairment were predictors of mortality irrespective of gender, while poor nutritional status in women and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease and medication with sedatives in men were gender-specific predictors. ADL correlated positively with dementia and negatively with S-albumin irrespective of gender, while malnutrition correlated positively with ADL in women and positively with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in men. To promote the quality of daily living in elderly individuals, it is of importance to improve the capabilities in daily functions and nutritional status, especially in women with functional impairment, and to prevent anxiety particularly in men. The findings also clarify that pneumonia is as common as cerebral vascular insult and heart failure as cause of death in this population.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available