3.8 Article

Coping with the cold - exploring relationships between cold housing, health and social wellbeing in a sample of older people in Ireland

期刊

QUALITY IN AGEING AND OLDER ADULTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 38-47

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/14717791211213607

关键词

Fuel poverty; Housing conditions; Health and social wellbeing; Cold weather

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - Older people are vulnerable to fuel poverty on the island of Ireland. This paper seeks to explore the lived experiences of older people in cold weather with a view to informing fuel poverty policy and service responses. Design/methodology/approach - A postal and online survey utilising an opportunistic sample of older people living in Ireland and linked with a range of services/community and voluntary groups was undertaken in January-April 2011. Data on the experiences of 722 older people in the cold weather of winter 2010/2011 were analysed in the context of socio-economic, health, and housing circumstances. Findings - During the period of extreme cold weather half of the sample reported that they went without other household necessities due to the cost of home-heating. In general, 62 per cent of those surveyed worried about the cost of home-heating. Homes considered too cold'' were more likely to lack central heating and experience damp/draughts. Staying indoors, keeping the heating on, and eating hot food/drinks were common responses to cold weather but a diverse range of behaviours was observed. Associations were observed between living in a cold home and higher levels of chronic illness, falls and loneliness, and fewer social activities. Research limitations/implications - The sample cannot be considered nationally representative; single occupancy and social housing units were overrepresented. Originality/value - This research found significant associations between living in a cold home/difficulty paying for heating, and aspects of ill-health and social exclusion. While no causal association

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