The relationship between body mass index and quality of life in community-living older adults living in the United States

2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 495-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank G. Bottone ◽  
K. Hawkins ◽  
S. Musich ◽  
Y. Cheng ◽  
R. J. Ozminkowski ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 17-17
Author(s):  
Yifan Lou ◽  
Nan Jiang ◽  
Katherine Ornstein

Abstract Background: Quality of life (QoL) during last stage of life has raised expanded interests as an important aspect of person-centered care. Last place of care (LPC), refer to the last place decedents received their formal end-of-life care (EOLC), has been identified as a key indicator of older adults’ end-of-life QoL, but the relationship was understudied. This study explores the association between LPC and end-of-life QoL among American older adults. Methods: Data used seven waves of Last Month of Life data with a total sample of 3068 Medicare decedents in NHATS. Outcome is end-of-life QoL assessed by eleven measures on four domains: pain and symptoms management (SP), quality of healthcare encounter (HE), person-centered care (PC), and overall quality of care (QC). LPC was categorized into home, hospital, nursing home, and residential hospice. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to examine the relationship with covariates. Results: LPC varied by most demographic characteristics, except immigration status and education. Older adults whose LPC is hospital, compared to those who had home-care, were less likely to have great experiences on HE, PC, and QC. People dying at nursing homes are more likely to receive care meeting their dyspnea and spiritual needs. Residential hospice is negatively related to respected care, clear coordination, and keeping family informed, but are more likely to provide PS and spiritual care. Discussion: Home-based end-of-life care has certain advantages but still has room to improve on SP and religious concerns. Hospitals should keep reforming their service delivery structure to improve patients’ QoL.


2016 ◽  
Vol 01 (04) ◽  
Author(s):  
John Fidler ◽  
Patrick McLaughlin ◽  
Deborah Bubela ◽  
Samantha E Scarneo ◽  
Jennifer McGarry ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 794-798
Author(s):  
Yun-Ju Lee ◽  
Jung-Ah Lee ◽  
Sun-Hee Kim ◽  
Ji-Sun Lim ◽  
Hye-Soon Park

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-14

Abstract Background: Research has documented many geographic inequities in health. Research has also documented that the way one thinks about health and quality of life (QOL) affects one’s experience of health, treatment, and one’s ability to cope with health problems. Purpose: We examined United-States (US) regional differences in QOL appraisal (i.e., the way one thinks about health and QOL), and whether resilience-appraisal relationships varied by region. Methods: Secondary analysis of 3,955 chronic-disease patients and caregivers assessed QOL appraisal via the QOL Appraisal Profile-v2 and resilience via the Centers for Disease Control Healthy Days Core Module. Covariates included individual-level and aggregate-level socioeconomic status (SES) characteristics. Zone improvement plan (ZIP) code was linked to publicly available indicators of income inequality, poverty, wealth, population density, and rurality. Multivariate and hierarchical residual modeling tested study hypotheses that there are regional differences in QOL appraisal and in the relationship between resilience and appraisal. Results: After sociodemographic adjustment, QOL appraisal patterns and the appraisal-resilience connection were virtually the same across regions. For resilience, sociodemographic variables explained 26 % of the variance; appraisal processes, an additional 17 %; and region and its interaction terms, just an additional 0.1 %. Conclusion: The study findings underscore a geographic universality across the contiguous US in how people think about QOL, and in the relationship between appraisal and resilience. Despite the recent prominence of divisive rhetoric suggesting vast regional differences in values, priorities, and experiences, our findings support the commonality of ways of thinking and responding to life challenges. These findings support the wide applicability of cognitive-based interventions to boost resilience. Keywords: appraisal; resilience; cognitive; quality of life; societal; geographic Abbreviations: MANOVA = Multivariate Analysis of Variance; PCA = principal components analysis; QOL = quality of life; SES = socioeconomic status; US = United States; ZIP = Zone Improvement Plan (postal code)


2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. A256-A257 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Adeyemi ◽  
K.L. Rascati ◽  
K.A. Lawson ◽  
J.C. Barner ◽  
J. Wilson ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica L. Thomson ◽  
Alicia S. Landry ◽  
Lisa M. Tussing‐Humphreys ◽  
Melissa H. Goodman

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document