BACKGROUND

Nearly all diseases in old age that are epidemiologically important can be reduced or prevented successfully through consequent changes in individual lifestyle, a systematic provision of measures in primary prevention (i.e. vaccination programmes) and the creation of health promoting settings. However, at the moment the amount of potential for preventative interventions is neither systematically nor sufficiently utilised in Germany.

METHODS

Two different preventative approaches: a) multidimensional advice session in small groups through an interdisciplinary team at a geriatric centre (seniors come to seek advice offered at a centre) or b) multidimensional advice at the seniors home through one member of the interdisciplinary team from the geriatric centre (expert takes advice to seniors home) were tested simultaneously with a well-described study sample of 804 independent community-dwelling senior citizens aged 60 years or over, without need of care and cognitive impairments recruited from general practices. Information about target group specific approaches in health promotion and prevention for senior citizens were retrieved from analyses of sociodemographic, medical, psychological and spacial characteristics of this study sample.

RESULTS

The majority of the study sample (580 out of 804 or 72.1%) decided to participate: a) 86.7% (503 out of 580) attended at the geriatric centre and sought advice in group sessions and b) 13.3% (77 out of 580) decided to receive advice in a preventive home visit. A total of 224 seniors (224 out of 804 or 27.9%) refused to participate at all. These three target groups were characterised on the basis of their age, gender, education, social background, health status, health behaviour, use of preventive care, self perceived health, functional disabilities, social net and social participation and distance or accessibility of preventative approaches. The 503 senior citizens who participated in small group sessions at the geriatric centre were characterised as "investors into their health resources". They were mobile and participated actively in their environment. They were open for health promoting advice and capable of understanding and incorporating it into their daily routines (health literacy). Those 224 seniors who refused any participation were characterised as "consumers of their health resources". They did not differ in age and gender from the health investors, but showed less self-efficacy and less self-responsibility and typical behaviour that endangers health in an active way, i.e. smokers or in a passive way, i.e. low physical activity. The 77 seniors who received a preventive home visit were characterised as "people with exhausted health resources". Their mobility was clearly restricted and autonomy was confined to their home environment. This group represented frail elderly people with many risk factors in different domains.

CONCLUSION

The strongest reason to refuse participation in health promoting programmes was the personal attitude related to one's own personal health. Taking account of needs and wants of the seniors who refused to participate more people expressed the reason "no interest" in the preventive home visit than in the small group session at the geriatric centre. To strengthen the integration of the GP as a trustworthy person would seem to be more successful to motivate senior citizens to participate in health promoting and preventative programmes in the future. This could succeed in a cooperation with geriatric centres to establish community centres for generally healthy senior citizens.