Taylor Donald H, Hoenig Helen
Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004 Jan;52(1):72-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52013.x.
To determine whether residual difficulty in functioning in spite of equipment use is linked with increased use of personal assistance.
Longitudinal. Two waves of the Asset and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old (AHEAD) database were used to test the effect of residual difficulty on hours of personal assistance and bed days at Wave 1 on hours of personal assistance, bed days, and nursing home placement at Waves 1 and 2.
A nationally representative setting of community-dwelling persons aged 70 and older and their spouses, regardless of age at Wave 1 AHEAD. There was movement of some respondents into nursing homes by the Wave 2 interview.
Respondents to the AHEAD survey, N=8,222 at Wave 1.
The dependent variables were hours of personal assistance in the month before the AHEAD survey (Waves 1 and 2), number of days in month before the survey in which the person did not get out of bed (Waves 1 and 2), and residence in a nursing home at Wave 2. The key explanatory variable was a mutually exclusive (four category) variable that specified whether there was residual difficulty (yes/no) in indoor mobility in spite of using equipment to aid specifically with indoor mobility. The four-category variable was defined by the four categories created by a cross-tabulation of equipment use (yes/no) and difficulty with indoor mobility (yes/no). A similar four-category variable was also defined for transferring in the home.
In cross section, equipment users with residual difficulty reported more hours of personal assistance in the case of indoor mobility impairment and were more likely to have some hours of personal assistance than those without residual difficulty with indoor mobility and transferring. Longitudinally, those with residual difficulty at Wave 1 were more likely to need some personal assistance hours at Wave 2 (odds ratio=1.67, 95% confidence interval= 1.23-2.26 for indoor mobility). For transferring, those with residual difficulty had 43 more hours of personal assistance per month (P=.001) than those for whom equipment resolved their disability. Residual disability was linked to more bed days for users of indoor mobility and transferring equipment, but it was not predictive of nursing home placement by Wave 2.
Equipment for indoor mobility or transfers apparently resolves difficulty for some users of the equipment but not for others. Residual task difficulty in spite of equipment for indoor mobility and transferring is linked with worse outcomes, including increased dependency on personal assistance and more days in bed. This shows that more attention is needed to determine whether equipment prescribed is appropriate for a patient's difficulty and that follow-up assessment is crucial after equipment is prescribed.
确定尽管使用了设备但功能仍存在残余困难是否与个人协助使用增加有关。
纵向研究。利用老年资产与健康动态研究(AHEAD)数据库的两波数据来测试第1波中残余困难对个人协助时长和卧床天数的影响,以及对第1波和第2波中的个人协助时长、卧床天数和养老院安置情况的影响。
对70岁及以上社区居住者及其配偶进行全国代表性抽样,无论其在AHEAD第1波时的年龄如何。到第2波访谈时,一些受访者已入住养老院。
AHEAD调查的受访者,第1波时有N = 8222人。
因变量包括AHEAD调查前一个月(第1波和第2波)的个人协助时长、调查前一个月未起床的天数(第1波和第2波)以及第2波时是否居住在养老院。关键解释变量是一个互斥的(四类)变量,用于指定尽管使用了专门辅助室内活动的设备,但在室内活动方面是否仍存在残余困难(是/否)。该四类变量由设备使用情况(是/否)和室内活动困难情况(是/否)交叉制表产生的四类定义。在家中转移方面也定义了类似的四类变量。
在横断面研究中,存在残余困难的设备使用者在室内活动能力受损时报告的个人协助时长更多,且比在室内活动和转移方面没有残余困难的使用者更有可能获得一定时长的个人协助。纵向来看,第1波时有残余困难的人在第2波时更有可能需要一定时长的个人协助(室内活动方面的优势比 = 1.67,95%置信区间 = 1.23 - 2.26)。在转移方面,有残余困难的人每月的个人协助时长比设备解决了其残疾问题的人多43小时(P = 0.001)。残余残疾与室内活动和转移设备使用者的更多卧床天数相关,但它并不能预测到第2波时是否会入住养老院。
室内活动或转移设备显然为一些设备使用者解决了困难,但对另一些人则不然。尽管有室内活动和转移设备,但残余任务困难与更差的结果相关,包括对个人协助的依赖增加和更多的卧床天数。这表明需要更加关注所开设备是否适合患者的困难,并且在开设备后进行随访评估至关重要。