Centre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, New South Wales, Australia.
MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development, Western Sydney University, New South Wales, Australia.
PLoS One. 2022 Aug 29;17(8):e0273412. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273412. eCollection 2022.
The relationship between social contact and quality of life is well-established within the general population. However, limited data exist about the extent of social interactions in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) providing long-term accommodation and care. We aimed to record the frequency and duration of interpersonal interactions among residents in RACFs and identify the association between residents' interpersonal interactions and quality of life (QoL).
A multi-methods study, including time and motion observations and a QoL survey, was conducted between September 2019 to January 2020. Thirty-nine residents from six Australian RACFs were observed between 09:30-17:30 on weekdays. Observations included residents' actions, location of the action, and who the resident was with during the action. At the end of the observation period, residents completed a QoL survey. The proportion of time residents spent on different actions, in which location, and with whom were calculated, and correlations between these factors and QoL were analysed.
A total of 312 hours of observations were conducted. Residents spent the greatest proportion of time in their own room (45.2%, 95%CI 40.7-49.8), alone (47.9%, 95%CI 43.0-52.7) and being inactive (25.6%, 95%CI 22.5-28.7). Residents were also largely engaged in interpersonal communication (20.2%, 95%CI 17.9-22.5) and self-initiated or scheduled events (20.5%, 95%CI 18.0-23.0). Residents' interpersonal communication was most likely to occur in the common area (29.3%, 95%CI 22.9-35.7), residents' own room (26.7%, 95%CI 21.0-32.4) or the dining room (24.6%, 95%CI 18.9-30.2), and was most likely with another resident (54.8%, 95%CI 45.7-64.2). Quality of life scores were low (median = 0.68, IQR = 0.54-0.76). Amount of time spent with other residents was positively correlated with QoL (r = 0.39, p = 0.02), whilst amount of time spent with facility staff was negatively correlated with QoL (r = -0.45, p = 0.008).
Our findings confirm an established association between social interactions and improved QoL. Opportunities and activities which encourage residents to engage throughout the day in common facility areas can support resident wellbeing.
社交接触与生活质量之间的关系在普通人群中已得到充分证实。然而,关于为长期住宿和护理提供服务的养老院中社交互动的程度,数据有限。我们旨在记录养老院居民之间人际互动的频率和持续时间,并确定居民人际互动与生活质量(QoL)之间的关系。
本研究采用了一种多方法的方法,包括时间和运动观察以及生活质量调查,该研究于 2019 年 9 月至 2020 年 1 月进行。对澳大利亚六家养老院的 39 名居民在工作日的 09:30-17:30 之间进行观察。观察包括居民的行为、行为地点以及行为期间与谁在一起。在观察期结束时,居民完成了生活质量调查。计算了居民在不同活动、不同地点和不同对象上花费的时间比例,并分析了这些因素与生活质量之间的相关性。
共进行了 312 小时的观察。居民在自己的房间里度过的时间最多(45.2%,95%CI 40.7-49.8),独自度过的时间最多(47.9%,95%CI 43.0-52.7),不活动的时间也最多(25.6%,95%CI 22.5-28.7)。居民还主要参与人际交流(20.2%,95%CI 17.9-22.5)和自我发起或安排的活动(20.5%,95%CI 18.0-23.0)。居民之间的人际交流最有可能发生在公共区域(29.3%,95%CI 22.9-35.7)、居民自己的房间(26.7%,95%CI 21.0-32.4)或餐厅(24.6%,95%CI 18.9-30.2),最有可能与另一位居民(54.8%,95%CI 45.7-64.2)进行交流。生活质量评分较低(中位数=0.68,IQR=0.54-0.76)。与其他居民相处的时间与生活质量呈正相关(r=0.39,p=0.02),而与设施工作人员相处的时间与生活质量呈负相关(r=-0.45,p=0.008)。
我们的研究结果证实了社交互动与提高生活质量之间的既定关系。那些鼓励居民在整个白天在公共设施区域进行互动的机会和活动,可以支持居民的幸福感。