ABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Primary Health Care/standards , Quality of Health Care/standards , Coronavirus Infections , Pneumonia, Viral , Pandemics , Betacoronavirus , Holistic HealthSubject(s)
COVID-19 , Efficiency, Organizational/economics , Health Care Reform/economics , Quality of Health Care/economics , Reimbursement, Incentive , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Efficiency, Organizational/standards , Health Care Reform/organization & administration , Humans , Pandemics , Quality of Health Care/organization & administration , Spain/epidemiologyABSTRACT
AIM: We evaluated the reduction in perceived loneliness and depression and the increase in social support and quality of life in community-dwelling lonely people aged >65 years included in a community intervention compared with nonlonely controls from the same urban area. DESIGN: Randomised clinical trial without blind evaluation. LOCATION: Urban area of Barcelona. PARTICIPANTS: Community dwellers aged >65 years with loneliness identified by the primary care team. INTERVENTIONS: The primary care team together with community agents (municipal social services, community civil and religious associations) carried out 18 sessions developing activities including educational workshops, mindfulness, yoga, walking and visits to urban gardens. RESULTS: We included 55 patients (87% female, mean age 80.6 ± 6.86 years) of whom 82% had moderate and 18% severe loneliness. Six months postintervention, 48.3% of the intervention group did not feel lonely compared with 26.9% of controls (p = 0.001). Social support (DUKE-UNC-11) increased from 33.5 ± 9.3 to 41.4 ± 6.6, and mental health (SF-12) from 36 ± 610.4 to 48 ± 11.1 and depressive symptoms (Yesavage test) decreased from 9.2 ± 3.6 to 5.2 ± 5.0 in the intervention but not the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention mainly reached people with moderate loneliness and significantly improved the perception of loneliness, depressive symptoms, social support and the mental health component of the quality of life. The intervention may be more suitable for people with moderate loneliness, but these types of activities may be difficult to accept by people with severe loneliness not related to the barriers to socialisation generated by ageing.
Subject(s)
Independent Living , Loneliness , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Male , Mental Health , Quality of Life , Social SupportABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Primary Health Care , Telematics , TelemedicineABSTRACT
OBJETIVO: Determinar la prevalencia de soledad y aislamiento social en la población mayor de 65 años cubierta por un equipo de atención primaria urbano e identificar sus principales características. DISEÑO: Encuesta telefónica. Emplazamiento: Área básica de Barcelona. PARTICIPANTES: Muestra aleatoria de población asignada de edad igual o superior a 65 años. Mediciones principales: Encuesta de soledad de UCLA, escala de red social de Lubben. RESULTADOS: Se entrevistó a 278 personas (respuesta 61,36%), 172 mujeres y 106 hombres, con una edad media de 76,7 ± 7,9 años. Existía una mayor proporción de factores de riesgo de soledad en los que no respondieron. La soledad se correlaciona estrechamente con el aislamiento social r = 0,736. La soledad moderada, con una prevalencia del 16,54%, se asocia a presentar dificultades a la marcha (OR 3,09, IC del 95%, 1,03-9,29), deterioro cognitivo (OR 3,97, IC del 95%, 1,19-13,27) y a barreras arquitectónicas (OR 5,29, IC del 95%, 2,12-13,23), mientras que la soledad severa, con una prevalencia de 18,71%, solo se asocia a convivir con menos personas (OR 0,61, IC del 95%, 0,40-0,93). El riesgo de aislamiento social, con una prevalencia del 38,85%, se asocia a la edad (OR 1,06, IC del 95%, 1,02-1,10) y a problemas de salud (OR 4,35, IC del 95%, 1,11-16,99). CONCLUSIONES: La soledad y el aislamiento social son muy prevalentes. Existen 2 perfiles de soledad, una moderada relacionada con las dificultades a la sociabilidad que aparecen con el envejecimiento y otra severa que no está asociada a la salud o las barreras. Las intervenciones deberían adecuarse a cada uno de estos perfiles
OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of loneliness and social isolation in a population over 65 cared by a urban primary health team and to identify its main characteristics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional descriptive study by a telephone survey. SETTING: Basic health area of Barcelona. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of assigned population of 65 or more years old. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: UCLA Loneliness Scale and Lubben Social Network Scale. RESULTS: 278 persons were interviewed (61,36% response rate), 172 women and 106 men, with an average age of 76,7 ± 7,9 years. A higher proportion of factors related to loneliness were identified in non-respondents. Loneliness was closely correlated to social r = 0,736. Moderate loneliness, with a prevalence of 16,54%, was associated to walking difficulties (OR 3,09, 95%, IC 1,03-9,29), cognitive impairment (OR 3,97, 95% IC 1,19-13,27) and architectural barriers (OR 5.29, 95% IC 2.12-13,23), although severe loneliness, with a prevalence of 18,71% was only associated to living together with less people (OR 0.61, 95% IC 0.40-0.93). Social isolation, with a prevalence of 38,85% was associated to aging (OR 1,06, 95% IC 1,02-1,10) and to the belief of having health problems (OR 4,35, 95% IC 1,11-16,99). CONCLUSIONS: Loneliness and social isolation are of high prevalence. The telephone survey underestimates its prevalence. There are 2 profiles of loneliness, one with moderate associated to the socialisation difficulties related to aging and another severe not related to health or to barriers that only can be identified by surveys or clinical interview. Interventions must be targeted to each of these profiles
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Primary Health Care , Social Isolation/psychology , Cognitive Dysfunction , Urban Population , Loneliness/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Socioeconomic Factors , PrevalenceABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of loneliness and social isolation in a population over 65 cared by a urban primary health team and to identify its main characteristics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional descriptive study by a telephone survey. SETTING: Basic health area of Barcelona. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of assigned population of 65 or more years old. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: UCLA Loneliness Scale and Lubben Social Network Scale. RESULTS: 278 persons were interviewed (61,36% response rate), 172 women and 106 men, with an average age of 76,7 ± 7,9 years. A higher proportion of factors related to loneliness were identified in non-respondents. Loneliness was closely correlated to social r = 0,736. Moderate loneliness, with a prevalence of 16,54%, was associated to walking difficulties (OR 3,09, 95%, IC 1,03-9,29), cognitive impairment (OR 3,97, 95% IC 1,19-13,27) and architectural barriers (OR 5.29, 95% IC 2.12-13,23), although severe loneliness, with a prevalence of 18,71% was only associated to living together with less people (OR 0.61, 95% IC 0.40-0.93). Social isolation, with a prevalence of 38,85% was associated to aging (OR 1,06, 95% IC 1,02-1,10) and to the belief of having health problems (OR 4,35, 95% IC 1,11-16,99). CONCLUSIONS: Loneliness and social isolation are of high prevalence. The telephone survey underestimates its prevalence. There are 2profiles of loneliness, one with moderate associated to the socialisation difficulties related to aging and another severe not related to health or to barriers that only can be identified by surveys or clinical interview. Interventions must be targeted to each of these profiles.
Subject(s)
Loneliness , Social Isolation , Urban Population/statistics & numerical data , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Architectural Accessibility , Cognition Disorders/complications , Confidence Intervals , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Health Status , Humans , Male , Mobility Limitation , Odds Ratio , Prevalence , Risk Factors , Socioeconomic Factors , Spain , Surveys and Questionnaires/statistics & numerical dataSubject(s)
Health Care Reform , Primary Health Care/standards , Quality of Health Care , Humans , SpainABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In 2012 the Spanish government passed Royal Decree-Law 16/2012 (RDL) aimed at containing public expenditure in response to the economic crisis. This RDL redefined just who would be entitled to public health care. As a result, a large proportion of undocumented immigrants in Spain were excluded from basic publicly financed health care with access only being granted under particular circumstances (emergency care, maternal care, children under 18, asylum seekers and victims of human trafficking). AIM: The aims of this paper are to identify the specific traits of this policy, review its impact on health and health care access, and to evaluate its economic impact. RESULTS: Most political parties and health professional groups opposed the RDL, and a large number of Spanish regions either declined to apply it or opted to apply it partially. To date, the RDL has had a considerable impact on the access of undocumented immigrants to public health care, with evidence suggesting that approximately 870,000 people have been excluded. A slight increase in infectious diseases has been reported, albeit not as high as originally predicted, and recent evidence points to an increase in mortality among this population subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Regional legislation favouring the coverage of undocumented immigrants might have acted as a counterweight and thus contained the negative health effects in this population subgroup. But the Constitutional Court invalidated all regional arrangements obliging regions to comply with the RDL.
Subject(s)
Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , Undocumented Immigrants/statistics & numerical data , Delivery of Health Care/economics , Economic Recession , Humans , Politics , SpainABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , History, 20th Century , History, 21st Century , Primary Health Care/history , Portraits as Topic , EnglandABSTRACT
Background: Comorbidity remains a matter of international interest, given growing prevalence of chronic conditions. Objective: To evaluate the impact that adding a telephone coaching intervention by a family physician to usual care has on reducing resource consumption and improving health status, caregiver burden and quality of life among complex chronic patients (CCP) compared with usual care. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted on a random sample of CCP from three primary care teams in Barcelona. Patients were randomly allocated into intervention or control groups. Evaluations were conducted at baseline and after six-month follow-up. Intervention patients were phoned twice a month by a family physician. Both groups received usual care. Primary endpoint was change in total number of urgent visits per patient. Secondary endpoints were changes in health and mental status, quality of life and caregiver burden. Results: Hundred and sixty-one CCP were included. During follow-up, 9 patients died and 2 were lost. At baseline, patients' characteristics and resource consumption were similar for both groups. After six months, urgent visits per patient decreased in intervention (1.27 baseline versus 0.89 follow-up, P = 0.091) and control (1.06 baseline versus 0.86 follow-up, P = 0.422) groups, mean difference 0.18 [confidence interval (CI) 95% -0.48 to 0.84]. Intervention patients improved in the physical component of the SF-12 questionnaire, while worsening in control patients, mean difference 4.71 (CI 95% -9.03 to -0.41). Differences were not found in the rest of the endpoints. Conclusion: The intervention did not reduce urgent visits among CCP neither improved patient's health.
Subject(s)
Case Management , Chronic Disease , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , Referral and Consultation , Telephone , Aged, 80 and over , Comorbidity , Female , Health Status , Humans , Male , Physicians, Family/statistics & numerical data , Quality of Life/psychology , Spain , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
La soledad y el aislamiento social son condicionantes de salud emergentes en la población anciana, especialmente en las personas viudas, hiperfrecuentadoras y con problemas crónicos y depresión. La soledad es la sensación subjetiva de tener menor afecto y cercanía de lo deseado en el ámbito íntimo o relacional. El aislamiento social es la situación objetiva de contar con mínimos contactos con otras personas. Su contribución al incremento de la morbimortalidad es comparable al de otros factores de riesgo bien conocidos sobre los que actuamos a diario desde los equipos de atención primaria. Se discuten estrategias para identificar estos problemas en nuestros pacientes y para realizar intervenciones basadas en la evidencia científica tanto a nivel individual como comunitario en cooperación con otros recursos de la comunidad. El equipo de atención primaria ha de promover la autonomía de estos pacientes, facilitar su sociabilidad y actuar sobre sus pensamientos sociales maladaptativos que dificultan su integración social
Loneliness and social isolation are emerging health conditions in the elderly population, in particular widows, high frequency users of health services and those with chronic problems and depression. Loneliness is the subjective feeling of having less affection and closeness than that desired in the intimate or relational field. Social isolation is an objective situation of having minimal contact with other people. Its contribution to increased morbidity and mortality is comparable to other well known risk factors that we deal with daily as Primary Care teams. Strategies to identify these problems in our patients and to perform scientific evidence based studies at individual and community level in cooperation with other community resources and interventions are discussed. The Primary Care team must promote the autonomy of these patients, facilitating their sociability, and act on their social maladaptive thoughts that hinder their social integration
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Social Isolation/psychology , Loneliness , Depression/complications , Depression/diagnosis , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Primary Health Care/standards , Primary Health CareABSTRACT
Objective: To identify the relevant barriers and enablers perceived by primary care professionals in implementing the recommendations of clinical practice guidelines (CPG). Methods: Two focus groups were conducted with primary care physicians and nurses in Catalonia (Spain) between October and December 2012. Thirty-nine health professionals were selected based on their knowledge and daily use of CPG. Finally, eight general practitioners and eight nurses were included in the discussion groups. Participants were asked to share their views and beliefs on the accessibility of CPG, their knowledge and use of these documents, the content and format of CPG, dissemination strategy, training, professional-patient relationship, and the use of CPG by the management structure. We recorded and transcribed the content verbatim and analysed the data using qualitative analysis techniques. Results: Physicians believed that, overall, CPG were of little practical use and frequently referred to them as a largely bureaucratic management control instrument that threatened their professional autonomy. In contrast, nurses believed that CPG were rather helpful tools in their day-to-day practice, although they would like them to be more sensitive to the current role of nurses. Both groups believed that CPG did not provide a response to most of the decisions they faced in the primary care setting. Conclusions: Compliance with CPG recommendations would be improved if these documents were brief, non-compulsory, not cost-containment oriented, more based on nursing care models, sensitive to the specific needs of primary care patients, and integrated into the computer workstation (AU)
Objetivo: Identificar barreras y facilitadores percibidos por los profesionales de atención primaria en la aplicación de las recomendaciones de las guías de práctica clínica (GPC). Método: Dos grupos focales con profesionales médicos y de enfermería (atención primaria) en Cataluña entre octubre y diciembre de 2012. Se seleccionaron 39 profesionales según su conocimiento y uso de las GPC. Finalmente se incluyeron ocho médicos/as de familia y ocho profesionales de enfermería. Se solicitó a los/las participantes compartir sus opiniones y creencias sobre accesibilidad, conocimiento y uso de las GPC, su contenido y formato, difusión, capacitación, relación profesional-paciente, y su utilización por parte de la estructura de gestión. Los contenidos fueron grabados, transcritos y analizados utilizando técnicas de análisis cualitativos. Resultados: Los/las médicos/as creen que las GPC son en general de relativa utilidad práctica y con frecuencia se refieren a ellas como un instrumento de control burocrático que amenaza su autonomía profesional. Por el contrario, el grupo de enfermería consideró las GPC como herramientas bastante útiles en la práctica, aunque aún poco sensibles al papel actual de la enfermería. Ambos grupos creen que las GPC no ofrecen una respuesta a la mayor parte de las decisiones en el ámbito de la atención primaria. Conclusiones: El cumplimiento de las GPC mejoraría con recomendaciones breves, no obligatorias, no orientadas a la contención de costes y sensibles a las necesidades específicas de los/las pacientes en atención primaria, integrándolas en la estación de trabajo clínica (AU)
