3.8 Article

Prevalence and risk factors for insomnia in community-dwelling elderly in northern Taiwan

期刊

出版社

ASIA PACIFIC LEAGUE CLINICAL GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcgg.2013.02.002

关键词

Community-dwelling elderly; Insomnia; Northern Taiwan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Purpose: To determine the prevalence and risk factors for insomnia among communitydwelling elderly in northern Taiwan. Materials and methods: A cross- sectional survey was conducted among 1358 elderly people (601 men, 44.3%; and 757 women, 55.7%) who had received a senior-citizen health examination between March 2009 and November 2009. Responses to a clinical questionnaire on insomnia (Chinese version of the Athens insomnia scale), mental health (brief symptom rating scale), and 14 physical symptoms were measured. Results: Insomnia syndrome was found in 41% of individuals; it was more common in women than in men (63.3.0% vs. 36.7%). Multivariate models showed that aging [>= 80 years old, odds ratio (OR) - 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-0.93], living with family (OR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.35-0.76), and perceived good health status (OR = 0.58 and 0.71, p< 0.05) were associated with a decreased risk of insomnia. Meanwhile, female gender (OR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.37-2.12), receipt of medication for chronic diseases (OR = 1.64, 95% CI: 1.29-2.08), high brief symptom rating scale score (1.45, 95% CI: 1.32-1.86), perceived poor health status (OR = 1.92 and 1.80, p< 0.05), and total physical symptoms (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.08-1.70) were associated with an increased risk of insomnia. Conclusion: The results indicate that the aging process itself is not responsible for the increased prevalence of insomnia often reported in older people. Instead, physical symptoms, receipt of medication for chronic diseases, mental health status, living status, and perceived level of well- being affected the risk of insomnia. Copyright (C) 2013, Asia Pacific League of Clinical Gerontology & Geriatrics. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC.

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

3.8
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