4.3 Article

Healthcare Professionals' Perceptions of Loneliness amongst Older Adults: A Qualitative Study

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182212071

关键词

descriptive study; healthcare; loneliness; older adults; public health; qualitative study

资金

  1. Health Sciences Research Group [CTS-451]
  2. University of Almeria (Spain)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Healthcare professionals perceive loneliness among older adults as a multifactorial and subjective experience that can negatively affect health, requiring greater involvement of society as a whole to address it as a public health issue.
Background: Loneliness amongst older adults is linked to poor health outcomes and constitutes a public health issue worldwide. Healthcare professionals' perceptions could influence the strategies they implement in order to prevent, detect and manage loneliness amongst older adults. The aim of this study was to describe and understand healthcare professionals' perceptions of loneliness amongst older adults. Methods: A descriptive qualitative study. Twenty-six Spanish healthcare professionals with experience caring for older adults participated in the study. Data were collected between November 2019 and September 2020 using focus groups and in-depth interviews. Data were analysed following a content analysis method using ATLAS.ti software. Results: Healthcare professionals' perceptions of loneliness amongst older adults is represented by three themes: (1) when one's personal life and social context lead to loneliness ; (2) from abandonment to personal growth: the two faces of loneliness ; and (3) loneliness as a health issue that needs to be addressed . Conclusions: Healthcare professionals perceive loneliness as a multifactorial, subjective experience that can trigger different coping mechanisms and negatively affect older people's health. Healthcare professionals consider that a greater involvement of the whole society is needed in order to fight loneliness amongst older adults as a public health issue.

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