Quality-of life of the elderly in urban and rural areas in Serbia.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The number of elderly people in the world is growing, in Serbia as well. Serbia is already among the top ten countries with the oldest population, it is the fact. Aging influences the quality of life in different ways. The aim of this study was to assess the health-related quality of life of the elderly in urban and rural areas in Serbia. METHODS: The study included 100 elderly people aged 65 years and above in urban and rural areas in Serbia. The next questionnaires were used: a socio-demographic questionnaire and a Serbian version of standardized European Euro-QoL questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), as a basic index for the assessment and description of the quality of life. RESULTS: In the structure of the respondents, according to the achieved social contacts (p = 0.012), the life of those with family members (p = 0.009), and health status (p = 0.000), in relation to the place of residence there was a statistically significant difference. There was a significant difference (p = 0.040), predominantly poor score for anxiety/depression within the rural population. The average value of quality of life in urban and rural areas was not statistically significant (p = 0.720). For those living in rural areas there was a statistically significant positive correlation between anxiety/depression and age, wealth status, marital status, living with family members and achieving social contacts, while a negative correlation was observed between anxiety/depression and education. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the data of our study, we can say that the presence of anxiety/depression among older people is greater in rural than in urban areas. The results of this study show that the perception of anxiety/depression among older in rural areas is bigger with the age and poverty increasing, the loss of a spouse, life without family members, lack of achievement of social contacts and lower education.

Assessment of quality of care in acute postoperative pain management.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Managing of acute postoperative pain should be of great interest for all hospital institutions, as one of the key components of patients satisfaction, which indicates quality, as well as the outcome of treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of nursing care in managing acute postoperative pain and to establish factors which influence patients assessment of the same. METHOD: The investigation was conducted on the sample of 135 patients hospitalized in surgical clinics of the Clinical Centre of Vojvodina in Novi Sad in the form of cross-sectional study, by interviewing patients during the second postoperative day and collecting sociodemographic variables, type of surgical procedure and applied analgesic therapy which were taken from their medical documentation. The modified questionnaire of the Strategic and Clinical Quality Indicators in Postoperative Pain Management (SCQIPP) was used as the instrument of the investigation. The data were processed with suitable mathematical statistics methods such as multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA), discriminative and other parametric procedures and methods. Roy's test, Pearson's coefficient contingency (X), multiple correlation coefficient (R) were conducted amongst other univariant procedures. RESULTS: The mean score for the individual items of SCQIPP questionnaire was between 2.0 and 4.7 (scale range 1-5) and the percentage of patients answers "strongly agree" ranged from 4.4 to 77%. The smallest number of positive answers were given by the patients for the item "In order to assess pain intensity, some of the staff asked me at least once in the morning, in the afternoon and in the evening to show the number from 0-10". Most of the patients (57%) evaluated severe pain during the previous 24 hours, as moderate pain, which represents significantly greater number of patients which complain of severe pain and mild pain (p < 0.001). The analysis of patients evaluation (MANOVA p < 0.05 and discriminative p < 0.05) indicates the existence of significant difference between the assessment of nursing care quality in managing acute postoperative pain as regards to clinics as the place for pain management, patient's sex and his expectations. Evaluation from "communication" subscale gives the greatest contribution (24.9%) to the difference between the observed clinics, and the greatest contribution (25.7%) to the difference in evaluation of nursing care quality as regards to patients' sex has the evaluations from "procedure" subscale. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show a useful evidence and identify aspects of nursing care in postoperative management of acute pain which are still to be improved. According to the patients' answers the priority should be given to a regular assessment of the intensity of postoperative pain and evaluation of the effects of analgesic therapy.