高级检索
李少杰, 崔光辉, 尹永田. 社区老年人社会隔离及孤独感对衰弱影响[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2022, 38(4): 399-403. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1132588
引用本文: 李少杰, 崔光辉, 尹永田. 社区老年人社会隔离及孤独感对衰弱影响[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2022, 38(4): 399-403. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1132588
LI Shao-jie, CUI Guang-hui, YIN Yong-tian. Influence of social isolation and loneliness on frailty among community elderly people[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 2022, 38(4): 399-403. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1132588
Citation: LI Shao-jie, CUI Guang-hui, YIN Yong-tian. Influence of social isolation and loneliness on frailty among community elderly people[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 2022, 38(4): 399-403. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1132588

社区老年人社会隔离及孤独感对衰弱影响

Influence of social isolation and loneliness on frailty among community elderly people

  • 摘要:
      目的  分析社区老年人社会隔离与孤独感对衰弱的影响路径,为开展老年人衰弱干预提供理论依据。
      方法  于2019年12月采用分层随机整群抽样方法在山东省济南市抽取1091名老年人作为研究对象,采用一般情况调查表、Lubben简版社会网络量表、ULS-6孤独感量表和Tilburg衰弱量表进行问卷调查;应用SPSS 25.0统计软件Process宏程序中的模型4对社会隔离、孤独感与衰弱进行多重回归分析,检验社会隔离对衰弱的影响路径。
      结果  1091名社区老年人中,245人(22.5 %)存在社会隔离,257人(23.6 %)存在家庭隔离,238人(21.8 %)存在朋友隔离,373人(34.2 %)存在衰弱;存在社会隔离、家庭隔离、朋友隔离的社区老年人孤独感和衰弱得分分别为(11.55 ± 4.17)和(4.73 ± 3.24)分、(11.38 ± 4.08)和(4.67 ± 3.18)分、(11.27 ± 4.19)和(4.88 ± 3.34)分,均高于不存在社会隔离、家庭隔离和朋友隔离社区老年人的(10.29 ± 3.94)和(3.83 ± 2.75)分、(10.32 ± 3.97)和(3.83 ± 2.76)分、(10.37 ± 3.95)和(3.79 ± 2.70)分,差异均有统计学意义(均P < 0.01);在控制了性别、年龄、文化程度、婚姻状况、月平均收入、户籍类型和慢性病患病情况等混杂因素后,多重回归分析结果显示,社会隔离显著正向影响孤独感(β = 1.149,P < 0.01),且社会隔离及孤独感均正向影响衰弱(β = 0.487、0.171,均P < 0.05);基于偏差校正的非参数百分位Bootstrap检验结果显示,社会隔离对衰弱的直接效应值为0.487(95 % CI = 0.110~0.865),社会隔离通过孤独感对衰弱的间接效应值为0.197(95 % CI = 0.094~0.314),总效应值为0.684(95 % CI = 0.297~1.071),直接效应值和间接效应值分别占总效应值的71.2 % 和28.8 %。
      结论  社会隔离既可以直接影响社区老年人的衰弱情况,又可以孤独感为中间变量间接影响其衰弱情况。

     

    Abstract:
      Objective  To analyze influences of social isolation and loneliness on frailty and paths of the influences among community elderly people and to provide evidences for developing intervention on elderly frailty.
      Methods  Using stratified random cluster sampling, we recruited 1 130 permanent residents age 60 years and above in 16 urban communities/rural villages in Ji′nan municipality of Shandong province and conducted a survey among the residents during December 2019. A self-designed questionnaire on general information, Lubben Social Network Scale – 6, UCLA Loneliness Scale – 6, and Tilburg Frailty Indicator were adopted in the study and the model 4 in Process macro program of SPSS 25.0 statistical software was used in multiple regression analyses on impacts of social isolation and loneliness on frailty and paths of the impacts.
      Results  Among 1 091 participants with complete data, 245 (22.5%), 257 (23.6%), and 238 (21.8%) were identified as having social, family, and friend isolation; 373 (34.2%) were found having frailty. Compared to the scores among the participants without the three isolations, significantly higher scores of loneliness and frailty were observed among the participants with social isolation (11.55 ± 4.17 vs. 10.29 ± 3.94 and 4.73 ± 3.24 vs. 3.83 ± 2.75), family isolation (11.38 ± 4.08 vs. 10.32 ± 3.97 and 4.67 ± 3.18 vs. 3.83 ± 2.76), and friend isolation (11.55 ± 4.17 vs. 10.37 ± 3.95 and 4.73 ± 3.24 vs. 3.79 ± 2.70), respectively (all P < 0.01). After adjusting for confounding factors such as gender, age, education, marital status, monthly average income, residence, and prevalence of chronic diseases, the results of multiple regression analysis revealed that social isolation was significantly associated positively with loneliness (β = 1.149, P < 0.01), and social isolation and loneliness were associated positively with frailty (β = 0.487 and β = 0.171, both P < 0.05). The results of bias correction-based non-parameter percentile Bootstrap test showed that the direct effect value of social isolation on frailty was 0.487 (95% confidence interval 95% CI: 0.110 – 0.865), the indirect effect value of social isolation on frailty was 0.197 (95% CI: 0.094 – 0.314), and the total effect value was 0.684 (95% CI: 0.297 – 1.071). The direct and the indirect effect accounted for 71.2% and 28.8% of total variance, respectively.
      Conclusion  Among urban and rural community elderly in Ji′nan municipality, social isolation could affect frailty condition, not only directly but also indirectly with the loneliness as an intermediate factor.

     

/

返回文章
返回