上海市宝山区居家养老现状与需求分析

目的 了解上海市宝山区老年人慢性病患病和养老现状及社区居家养老服务需求,为政府部门制定相关政策提供依据.方法 采用自行设计的调查表,对上海市宝山区625名老年人进行问卷调查,分析老年人目前的养老现状与需求.结果 老年人慢性病患病率为69.3％,居前5位的分别为高血压、关节炎、慢性支气管炎、糖尿病、冠心病,分别为17.0％、18.6％、20.2％、50.4％和14.4％.目前的养老方式以自我供养为主,占71.2％;喜欢家庭养老方式的占42.1％;二者差异有统计学意义(x2＝ 14.76,P＜0.05).不同年龄组老人对社区提供养老服务需要不同,差异有统计学意义(x2=6.07,P＜0.05).在需求社区提供的养老服务项目方面,需家庭医生上门服务的占73.8％,居家整洁的占72.5％,健康讲座的占44.1％.了解居家养老补贴的占32.5％,但成功申请的仅占2.6％.结论 宝山区老年人慢性病患病率高;养老方式以自我供养为主,喜欢社区居家养老方式,需要社区提供养老服务的需求在增高.提示政府应加大宣传力度,改变人们传统的家庭养老观念;拓展服务模式,增加慢性病干预措施.     

空巢老年人养老方式选择及影响因素研究——以徐州市为例

目的 探索空巢老年人养老意愿及其影响因素。方法 采用分层整群随机抽样的方法,采用自行设计的问卷对徐州市城乡社区60岁及以上的空巢老年人进行入户调查;采用χ2检验与多分类Logistic回归分析老年人养老方式选择的影响因素。结果 调查的1 176位老年人中,选择家庭自我养老、机构养老、社区居家养老的老年人分别占73.5%、11.9%、14.6%;居住在城市、有离退休待遇、配偶健在的倾向于选择家庭自我养老;高学历、独居、身患多种慢性疾病的倾向于选择机构养老;对子女尽孝评价较低的倾向于选择社区居家养老。结论 空巢老年人养老方式选择还是以家庭自我养老为主,应保护和提高空巢老年人自我养老能力,同时根据老年人特征与需求,加强养老机构的分类服务建设,积极寻找社区居家养老存在的问题并加以改进。     

社区居家养老服务对老年人慢性病管理的影响分析

目的以成都市郫都区居家养老服务机构为例,分析城市社区居家养老服务对老年人慢性病管理的影响,为社区居家养老的发展提供科学依据。方法采用自行设计的问卷,对比分析接受居家养老服务前后,以及接受社区卫生服务中心的社区老年慢性病的管理、控制以及服务满意度情况。结果在慢性病健康管理服务实施后,社区居家养老服务中心老年人对慢性病健康管理服务的满意度明显提高。其中健康咨询提高31.7%,健康教育与促进提高31.2%,健康体检与检测提高32.3%,健康信息管理提高28.7%,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。相对于社区卫生服务中心的慢病管理,居家养老服务中心的健康咨询高出11.7%,健康教育与促进高出16.2%,年检与监测提高21.2%,健康档案动态管理提高29.7%,满意度提高28.1%,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论社区居家养老服务在老年慢性病患者中需求日益增高,因此社区居家养老服务有其开展的必然性和必要性。     

慢性病老年人养老方式选择的影响因素研究

目的 了解慢性病老年人养老方式选择的影响因素,为其提供合适的养老方式。方法 通过多阶段分层抽样调查厦门市60岁及以上常住老年人的人口学资料、养老方式选择及慢性病患病情况等,采用χ2检验和多分类Logistic回归分析慢性病老年人养老方式选择的影响因素。结果 1 276名老年人中慢性病患病率为61.4%,慢性病老年人（相比未患慢性病老年人）选择社区居家养老和机构养老的比例均较高。以家庭养老为参照,慢性病老年人选择社区居家养老与机构养老的影响因素分别是与子女关系、居住地、文化程度、婚姻、孤独感,独居、与子女关系、文化程度、年龄、居住地。结论 慢性病老年人养老方式选择仍以家庭养老为主,但较未患慢性病老年人低。独居、年龄、婚姻、居住地、孤独感是慢性病老年人养老方式选择特有的影响因素。     

老年人养老方式选择及社区养老服务需求调查

目的调查社区养老服务需求及老年人养老方式选择。方法于2015年1~12月采用自行设计问卷调查表对我市宝安区松岗街道1 000例≥60岁老年人进行养老现况及养老需求问卷调查。结果社区老人最喜欢的养老模式是社区居家养老434例(44.97%),老年人对社区居家养老的涵义知晓率仅为74例(26.11%)当前最需要解决的养老问题是生活照顾问题370例(38.34%),最希望得到社区医疗卫生服务是定期常规健康检查386(40.0%),愿意入住养老机构的仅占154例(15.96%),有和子女完全分居意愿的69例(7.15%),最希望从子女处得到的支持为情感支持424(43.94%),对我国目前养老保障现状的满意度63.94%;年龄、文化程度、职业、婚姻、居住方式、经济状况、健康状况、社会保障情况为影响社区老年人选择养老方式的主要因素。结论本社区老年人养老在经济上不是主要问题,社区老人以社区居家养老为主,但社区的养老服务机构建设不足,不能满足日渐增多的独居老人、高龄体弱老人的养老需求;老人对于养老医疗需求是主要的,建立老年护理保险制度完善以家庭养老为主的综合性社区养老服务体系,是实现"健康老龄化"的保证。     

疫情防控常态化下长春市社区慢性病老年人养老服务需求及影响因素分析

目的 了解疫情防控常态化下，长春市社区慢性病老年人养老服务需求的现状并分析其影响因素。方法 2021年4月30日—10月15日采用便利抽样法选取长春市内15个社区中的481名老年慢性病患者为调查对象，采用一般资料调查表和慢性病老人养老服务需求问卷对其进行调查，并对数据进行分析。结果 长春市社区慢性病老年人养老服务需求总分为（122.154±15.025）分，条目均分为（3.701±0.455）分，自理能力、患病数量、有无配偶、年龄及有无子女是社区慢性病老年人养老服务需求的影响因素，差异均有统计学意义（均P<0.05）。结论 疫情防控常态化下长春市社区慢性病老年人养老服务需求处于中上水平，应通过分析其影响因素并给出相应对策以满足社区慢性病老年人对养老服务的需求。     

海口市老年人健康状况及居家养老医疗服务需求调查分析

目的 了解海口市老年人健康状况及居家养老医疗服务需求,为制定卫生规划提供科学依据。方法 采用多阶段整群随机抽样方法抽取海口市60岁以上老年人3 601名,通过入户问卷调查了解老年人基本情况、慢性病患病情况、养老方式选择以及对居家医疗服务需求。结果 共回收有效问卷3 544份,有效应答率98.42%。老年人文化程度主要以小学及以下为主,占43.68%,93.28%的老人与配偶和(或)子女同住,6.30%的老人独居;4.77%的老年人生活不能自理,30.11%的老年人部分自理需要照顾。60岁以上老年人慢性病患病率为65.83%,其中高血压、糖尿病、冠心病、脑卒中、精神或心理疾病、慢性阻塞性肺疾病、消化系统疾病、骨及关节疾病以及其他疾病患病率依次为31.94%、13.54%、2.51%、2.51%、0.90%、2.20%、3.02%、4.23%和17.41%。78.89%老年人选择居家养老并有居家养老医疗服务需求,11.91%老年人选择机构养老。二元logistic回归分析结果显示家庭关系、自评健康状况与居家养老医疗服务需求存在相关性;居家养老医疗服务费用可接受范围在1 000元以下的占70...     

社区老年人居家养老选择现状及影响因素分析

目的了解河北省唐山市社区老年人居家养老方式选择现状及其影响因素,为更好地建立社区居家养老服务体系提供参考依据。方法于2012年10月—2013年1月采用随机整群抽取方法对在唐山市路南、路北区抽取的2个社区共724名≥60岁社区老年人进行问卷调查。结果唐山市724名社区老年人中,228人(31.5%)倾向于选择居家养老;496名非居家养老老年人中,218人(44.0%)选择自我养老,193人(38.9%)选择子女养老,85人(17.1%)选择机构养老;多因素非条件logistic回归分析结果显示,子女全部在身边、患≥2种慢性病、有抑郁状态的社区老年人更倾向于选择居家养老,月收入≥3 800元的社区老年人更倾向于选择非居家养老。结论社区老年人居家养老方式受多种因素影响,主要包括患慢性病数量、月平均收入、子女在身边情况、是否抑郁等。     

居家养老在社区老年保健服务中的效果评价

目的研究居家养老对社区老年保健服务的效果,为社区老年保健的进一步发展提供科学的依据。方法采用健康相关生命质量测量量表(SF-36)调查接受个性化服务的100户老年人,分析其生命质量评分的变化;自拟调查问卷对随机抽取的362名60岁以上的社区老年人进行健康教育效果调查。结果接受居家养老服务后,老年人的生命质量评分得到明显提高,社区老年人对高血压、糖尿病的健康知识知晓率得到明显提高,且有35.00%及36.67%的老年人改变了自己的不健康饮食方式、行为习惯。结论社区居家养老服务能在社区老年保健中发挥非常积极的作用,有助于提高老年人的生活质量。     

社区居家养老健康服务模式研究

目的探索桃源社区居家养老健康服务模式,为社区养老的发展提供科学依据。方法建立社区动员体系,成立社区自我健康管理协会,利用社区资源为社区老人提供居家养老健康服务。观察开展居家养老健康服务前后社区老人慢性病的管理及控制情况,自拟调查问卷对接受居家养老健康服务的144名社区老年人进行满意度调查。结果桃源社区居家养老健康服务模式深受社区老人喜爱,满意度达93.1%;居家养老健康服务后,社区老年人对高血压、糖尿病的管理率和控制率得到了明显提高（P〈0.01）。结论社区居家养老健康服务模式充分整合了社区可利用资源,为社区居民提供综合、全面的居家养老健康服务,社区居民乐于接受,进一步促进了社区基本公共卫生服务工作的提升。     

社区慢性病老年人的健康状况及居家护理需求调查

摘要:目的　调查锦州市社区慢性病老年人的健康状况和社区居家护理需求,为开展慢性病老年人居家护理提供参考依据。方法　采用SF-36量表和自行设计的调查问卷对锦州市611位社区慢性病老年人的健康状况和居家护理需求进行调查。结果　社区慢性病老年人患病前4位的疾病依次是高血压（33.89%）、高血脂（25.53%）、风湿性关节炎（22.09%）、冠心病（19.31%）;SF-36量表总分、生理健康、心理健康随着年龄增大而降低（P＜0.05）,女性SF-36量表总分、生理健康、心理健康得分均高于男性（P＜0.05）;居家护理需求需求率前4位为:老人遇紧急情况时提供上门救护服务（67.10%）、为居家老人提供合理运动的指导（65.30%）、为居家老人提供营养饮食指（65.14%）、为居家老人提供康复指导（64.32%）。结论　社区应加强老年人慢性病的管理和相关知识的宣传教育,按需求提供居家护理服务,改善老年人健康。     

社区卫生服务机构参与居家养老服务的供给侧改革探讨

社区卫生服务机构参与居家养老服务对于促进健康老龄化具有重要意义,但目前由于社区卫生服务机构提供的医养结合服务存在内涵界定不清、相关政策法规体系不完善、人力资源障碍和服务资源网络不健全等问题,造成居家老人医疗服务需求不能得到满足与社区卫生服务利用率低的问题并存,因此,应从供给侧的服务结构进行改革,以满足居家老人的需求,并通过供给侧的改革刺激新的需求。     

互补还是替代：家庭照料与社区居家养老服务

文章使用国家卫生健康委2014年开展的中国计划生育家庭发展追踪调查数据,采用Probit模型和工具变量方法,实证检验家庭老年照料与社区上门生活护理服务和社区上门医疗服务之间的关系。研究发现：（1）家庭照料会显著减少老年人使用社区上门生活护理服务的概率,二者呈替代关系,但是在高龄和中、重度失能老人中,两者呈互补关系;（2）对于上门医疗服务则存在互补关系,家庭照料会显著增加老年人使用社区上门医疗服务的概率,但是在低收入老年人中,二者存在替代关系。文章建议社区居家养老服务体系建设要注重与家庭照料之间的协调发展,特别要关注高龄、中、重度失能和低收入老年人群体的照料需求,实现家庭照料与社区居家养老服务的优势互补。     

部队离退休干部居家养老服务管理模式及医疗保健工作探索

目的评价部队离退休干部居家养老服务管理模式并探索适于高龄老人（≥80岁）的新模式。方法回顾总结部队居家养老服务管理模式并评价干休所工作质量,调查44个驻京部队3473人离退休干部的健康和功能状况及高龄老人养老服务需求。结果部队干休所围绕“生活服务、医疗保健、文化活动”三个中心为离退休干部提供全方位居家养老服务保障,2012年干休所工作质量考评“达标”及“先进”的干休所分别为486所及111所。30．8％离退休干部为高龄老人,其日常生活能力依赖率较60～79岁者增高2—6倍,多系统疾病共患率亦均明显增高（P〈0．001）。高龄老人对基本日常生活及个性化服务等需枣增多。结论应探索适于“高龄、多病、失能”离退休干部需求的养老服务分级管理新模武。     

Use of Home-Based Clinical Care and Long-Term Services and Supports Among Homebound Older Adults

ObjectivesDescribe use of home-based clinical care and home-based long-term services and supports (LTSS) using a nationally representative sample of homebound older Medicare beneficiaries.DesignCross-sectional study.Setting and ParticipantsHomebound, community-dwelling fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries participating in the 2015 National Health and Aging Trends Study (n = 974).MethodsUse of home-based clinical care [ie, home-based medical care, skilled home health services, other home-based care (eg, podiatry)] was identified using Medicare claims. Use of home-based LTSS (ie, assistive devices, home modification, paid care, ≥40 hours/wk of family caregiving, transportation assistance, senior housing, home-delivered meals) was identified via self or proxy report. Latent class analysis was used to characterize patterns of use of home-based clinical care and LTSS.ResultsApproximately 30% of homebound participants received any home-based clinical care and about 80% received any home-based LTSS. Latent class analysis identified 3 distinct patterns of service use: class 1, High Clinical with LTSS (8.9%); class 2, Home Health Only with LTSS (44.5%); and class 3, Low Care and Services (46.6% homebound). Class 1 received extensive home-based clinical care, but their use of LTSS did not meaningfully differ from class 2. Class 3 received little home-based care of any kind.Conclusions and ImplicationsAlthough home-based clinical care and LTSS utilization was common among the homebound, no single group received high levels of all care types. Many who likely need and could benefit from such services do not receive home-based support. Additional work focused on better understanding potential barriers to accessing these services and integrating home-based clinical care services with LTSS is needed.     

我国老年人社区居家养老服务利用情况的影响因素研究

目的 分析我国老年人社区居家养老服务利用情况的影响因素。方法 选取2018年中国健康与养老追踪调查数据(CHARLS)中重要变量完整的17 075名老年人,收集人口社会学特征、生活方式、养老服务利用等信息。根据社区居家养老服务利用情况分为利用组（1 946人）和未利用组（15 129人）。按1∶1对人口学特征行倾向性评分匹配,并采用logistic回归分析社区居家养老服务利用的影响因素。结果 成功匹配1 945对,匹配前两组数据在年龄、教育水平、婚姻状态的组间差异有统计学意义(t=42.560,χ¹=126.614,191.320,P<0.001),匹配后在人口学特征上的组间差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。多因素logistic回归分析模型结果显示,戒烟(OR=1.168,95%CI:1.008~1.396)、患慢性病(1~2类,OR=1.433,95%CI:1.107~1.687;≥3类,OR=1.566,95%CI:1.269~1.931)、无社会活动量(OR=0.617,95%CI:0.515~0.741)、无长期照顾者(OR=0.573,95%CI:0.496~0.661)、有养老金或退休金(OR=1.221,95%CI:1.034~1.443)及医疗服务满意度(一般,OR=1.375,95%CI:1.127~1.678;满意,OR=1.531,95%CI:1.257~1.865)是老年人社区居家养老服务利用的独立影响因素(P均<0.05)。结论 倡导健康的生活方式、加强健康管理、鼓励社会活动、加强长期照护和提高社区医疗服务水平可有效促进我国老年人对社区居家养老服务的利用。     

Aren't health services already promoting health?

Abstract: Smoke–free health care environments are now the norm in Australia and exemplify the way in which environments for health care can become more health promoting. Community health services that assist people with chronic illnesses and disabilities to increase control over their lives, hospitals that provide nutritious food choices for staff and patients, and general practices that encourage routine preventive care throughout the life span are other examples of health–promoting environments. In their roles as providers of services, employers, community corporations and citizens, health care organisations have a wide range of opportunities for developing their capacity for health promotion. These include transforming the principles and values on which service delivery models are based, developing an organisational capacity for health promotion through staff training and designing programs, services and facilities to promote health. While some industry accreditation programs are evolving to embody specific elements that are health promoting, significant barriers to this area of organisational development continue to exist. These include disincentives linked with health care financing and the values, priorities and skills of health care workers who must turn rhetoric into practice. Just as the introduction of smoke–free environments success on research findings and a supportive political and social milieu to be successful, the further development of environments for health care which are health promoting in other ways will need to be driven by evidence and advocacy.     

Costs and determinants of privately financed home-based health care in Ontario, Canada

The Canadian context in which home-based healthcare services are delivered is characterised by limited resources and escalating healthcare costs. As a result, a financing shift has occurred, whereby care recipients receive a mixture of publicly and privately financed home-based services. Although ensuring that care recipients receive efficient and equitable care is crucial, a limited understanding of the economic outcomes and determinants of privately financed services exists. The purposes of this study were (i) to determine costs incurred by families and the healthcare system; (ii) to assess the determinants of privately financed home-based care; and (iii) to identify whether public and private expenditures are complements or substitutes. Two hundred and fifty-eight short-term clients (<90 days of service utilisation) and 256 continuing care clients (>90 days of utilisation) were recruited from six regions across the province of Ontario, Canada, from November 2003 to August 2004. Participants were interviewed by telephone once a week for 4 weeks and asked to provide information about time and monetary costs of care, activities of daily living (ADL), and chronic conditions. The mean total cost of care for a 4-week period was $7670.67 (in 2004 Canadian dollars), with the overwhelming majority of these costs (75%) associated with private expenditures. Higher age, ADL impairment, being female, and a having four or more chronic conditions predicted higher private expenditures. While private and public expenditures were complementary, private expenditures were somewhat inelastic to changes in public expenditures. A 10% increase in public expenditures was associated with a 6% increase in private expenditures. A greater appreciation of the financing of home-based care is necessary for practitioners, health managers and policy decision-makers to ensure that critical issues such as inequalities in access to care and financial burden on care recipients and families are addressed.     

Home First! Identification of Hospitalized Patients for Home-Based Models of Care

ObjectivesTo determine the proportion of hospitalized inpatients suitable for an acute and subacute home-based inpatient bed substitutive service, to examine the ability of treating teams to identify suitable patients for this service, and to examine potential barriers toward inpatients receiving home-based care.DesignProspective point prevalence study over 2 days in April 2019; analysis of responses to survey questionnaires regarding the suitability for home-based care among inpatients with multiday admissions to acute and subacute wards in the Royal Melbourne Hospital (RMH), an Australian metropolitan tertiary referral center.Setting and ParticipantsWard treating teams, clinicians affiliated with the home-based service called RMH@Home, and inpatients who were subsequently identified as being suitable for home-based care.MeasurementsPoint prevalence and characteristics of inpatients suitable for a home-based bed substitutive service; identified by either treating teams or RMH@Home clinicians; and barriers to the provision of home-based care among ward inpatients.ResultsSurvey responses were received for 620 of 635 inpatients [median age 69 years (interquartile range 53–81), 53% male], of which 69 (11.1%) were identified as being suitable for home-based inpatient bed substitution care. Treating team clinicians identified 26 patients, clinicians affiliated with RMH@Home identified a further 43 suitable patients. The most commonly reported barrier (38.1%) toward receiving home-based care was functional disability impeding ability to live at home.Conclusions and ImplicationsA substantial proportion of hospitalized older patients could use home-based inpatient bed substitutive services. Clinicians experienced in home-based care are more skilled than ward-based clinicians in identifying suitable patients for this care model.