4.3 Article

Pain among older adults from a gender perspective: findings from the Swedish National Study on Aging and Care (SNAC-Blekinge)

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 44, 期 3, 页码 258-263

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1403494815618842

关键词

Pain; prevalence; treatment; older adults

资金

  1. Swedish National Study on Aging and Care, SNAC
  2. Ministry of Health and Social Affairs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aims: Pain is common in the elderly population and its prevalence varies according to the studied disease, clinical setting, sex and age. This study examines pain in an aging population from a gender perspective. Methods: The Swedish National study on Aging and Care (SNAC) is conducted at four research centres. Participants were recruited from the baseline sample (n=1402) at one of the research centres, SNAC-Blekinge. Individuals aged 60 years and older were included and non-participation was documented. Research personnel conducted the medical examination on two occasions. Results: The prevalence of pain was 769/1402 (54.8%), distributed as 496/817 (64.5%) women and 273/585 (35.5%) men, p<0.01. Women reported more pain located in the vertebral column, p<0.01. The most common pain location was the legs and feet. About 84% reported pain intensity as 4 or higher on the visual analogue scale (VAS). Pain intensity declines with age among men, p<0.01. The most frequent treatment was painkillers. A total of 128/263 (48.7%) of the men received no pain treatment compared with 177/478 (37.0%) of the women, p<0.01. In a multivariate logistic regression model, women yielded the highest OR [OR 1.94 (C.I. 1.51-2.49)] for pain. Conclusions: Pain is common among older adults and there are significant differences between the sexes. Almost 55% of participants reported pain, predominantly women. In the majority of cases the intensity was rated as moderate or severe (VAS >4) and women rated higher than men p<0.02. Almost half of the men (48.7%) did not receive any treatment compared to 37% of the women, p<0.01.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据