scholarly journals Determinants Morale Scale of Rural and Urban Elderly Diabetics in Japan.

1994 ◽  
Vol 31 (9) ◽  
pp. 720-721
Author(s):  
R. Takahashi ◽  
Y. Izumo
2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 29698 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleia De Macedo ◽  
Vivian Ulrich ◽  
Antonio Miguel Gonçalves Bós ◽  
Ângelo José Gonçalves Bós

AIMS: To compare the self-perception of health status between rural and urban elderly and their possible associated factors.METHODS: The study consisted of a secondary analysis of data from the National Health Survey of 2013, conducted by the National Institute of Geography and Statistics, which included elderly who lived in rural and urban environments. The dependent variable was the self-perception of health status (evaluated as very good, good, fair, bad and very bad); and the independent variables were socio-demographic factors, clinical data, functionality of the elderly and household data. Relationships between the variables were tested by the chi-square test, and adjusted by self-perception of health status. The analysis were performed through the Epi InfoTM program version 7.2.1, accepting p<0.05 as significant.RESULTS: Rural elderly people were predominantly males, brown, married, illiterate and gainfully employed, despite having a low economic class. Among the rural elderly, self-perceived health status was more often regular or poor, the household was more often enrolled in the Family Health Strategy and most had no complementary health plan. Rural elderly also had better performance in the Basic Activities of Daily Living and worse performance in the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, had less depressive symptoms and less multimorbidity. Rural elderly presented lower chances of self-perception of good or very good health, even adjusting for gender, race, marital status, occupation, socioeconomic class, coverage by the Family Health Strategy, depressive symptoms, multimorbidity, and performance in the Basic Activities of Daily Living.CONCLUSIONS: The rural elderly have worse self-perception of health status than the urban elderly, even controlling socio-demographic, economic, clinical and health access characteristics.


1990 ◽  
Vol 90 (7) ◽  
pp. 986-987
Author(s):  
Margaret E. Briley ◽  
Millicent S. Owens ◽  
Martha Beth Gillham ◽  
Sylvia W. Sharplin

1992 ◽  
Vol 126 (3) ◽  
pp. 251-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
James A. Thorson ◽  
F. C. Powell

1996 ◽  
Vol 96 (9) ◽  
pp. A95 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.T. Rood ◽  
G.C. Lauritzen ◽  
C.T. Windham

2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 160-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Constança Paúl ◽  
António M. Fonseca ◽  
Ignácio Martín ◽  
João Amado

In the scope of the ecology-of-aging paradigm, we studied two different groups of independent elderly living in rural versus urban Portuguese settings. The main objectives were: (1) to develop knowledge on aging in different contexts; (2) to analyze the differences in autonomous behavior, social relationships, psychological satisfaction (e.g., morale), and self-perception of general health and quality of life between rural and urban residents; (3) to contribute to the design of policies for the elderly. We did 1.5h home interviews of 234 elderly (117 rural and 117 urban) to collect socio-demographic data, and access the capacity to perform instrumental activities of daily living (IADL Scale) and life satisfaction (Philadelphia Morale Scale). Although all the subjects were to some extent deprived, results show that the two communities are different in some socio-demographic characteristics such as education level and financial situation (favoring urban elderly), and in their level of autonomy (higher in rural elderly); they also differ in their social network (larger for rural elderly), feeling of anxiety (lower in rural elderly), and attitudes toward their own aging (more positive in rural elderly). Both communities have a similar feeling of loneliness and a somewhat negative perception of health and quality of life. All the elderly consider aging-in-place as very important and require more community-based services.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document