Aim To evaluate an impact of eight dimensions of self-rated health measured by the SF-36 questionnaire on visits to family physicians among people older than 65. Methods This cross-sectional study was carried out in family medicine outpatient departments of the Public Institution Primary Health Care Center of Canton Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The study included 200 respondents divided into two age groups:18-65 (n=100) and older than 65 (n=100). The SF-36 questionnaire for self-assessment of health status and a questionnaire for the evaluation of socio-demographic characteristics of respondents and health care utilization were used. Results In the group of respondents aged 18-65 the dimension that was related to physical functioning was assessed as best (79.1±25.6), while the dimension concerning the vitality was assessed as the worst (56.1±19.9). In the group of respondents older than 65 the dimension related to social functioning was assessed as best (65.4±24.9), and the dimensions related to general health was assessed as worst (47.7±20.4). Family physicians were visited by significantly more respondents older than 65 than those from the age group 18-65 (94% vs.74%) (p= 0.000). Scores on the scales of general health (p=0.021) and social functioning (p=0.024) in respondents older than 65 had a significant impact on visits to family physicians. Conclusion Poor self-rated general health and better social functioning are important predictors of visiting family physicians by elderly persons.
Charles S, Carstensen L. Social and emotional aging. Annu Rev Psychol. 2010. p. 383–409.
2.
Webb E, Blane D, Mcmunn A, Netuveli G. Proximal predictors of change in quality of life at older ages. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2011. p. 542–7.
3.
Zaninotto P, Falaschetti E, Sacker A. Age trajectories of quality of life among older adults: results from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Qual Life Res. 2009. p. 1301–9.
4.
Waidmann T, Bound J, Schoenbaum M. The illusion of failure: trends in the self-reported health of the US elderly. Milbank Q. 1995. p. 253–87.
5.
Kalfoss M, Halvorsrud L. Important Issues to Quality of Life Among Norwegian Older Adults: An Exploratory Study. Open Nurs J. 2009. p. 45–55.
6.
Kaczmarczyk M, Trafiałek E. Activating elderly people -a chance of good and satisfying aging. Gerontol Pol. 2007. p. 116–8.
7.
Christensen K, Doblhammer G, Rau R, Vaupel J. Ageing populations: the challenges ahead. Lancet. 2009. p. 1196–208.
8.
Carstensen L, Turan B, Scheibe S, Ram N, Ersner-Hershfield H, Samanez-Larkin G, et al. Emotional experience improves with age: Evidence based on over 10 years of experience sampling. Psychol Aging. 2011. p. 21–33.
9.
Schnittker J, Bacak V. The increasing predictive validity of self-rated health. PLoS ONE. 2014. p. 84933.
10.
Freedman V, Martin L, Schoeni R, Cornman J. Declines in late-life disability: The role of early-and mid-life factors. SocSci Med. 2008. p. 1588–602.
11.
Martin L, Schoeni R, Freedman V, Andreski P. Feeling better? Trends in general health status. J Gerontol B PsycholSciSocSci. 2007. p. 11–21.
12.
Shi L, Starfield B, Politzer R, Regan J. Primary Care, Self-rated Health, and Reductions in Social Disparities in Health. Health Serv Res. 2002. p. 529–50.
13.
Mcgee H, ’hanlon O, Barker A, Hickey M, Montgomery A, Conroy A, et al. Vulnerable older people in the community: relationship between the Vulnerable Elders Survey and health service use. J Am GeriatrSoc. 2008. p. 8–15.
14.
Laroche M. Health status and health services utilization of Canada´s immigrants and non-immigrant populations. Canadian Public Policy. 2000. p. 51–75.
15.
Pappa E, Niakas D. Assessment of health care needs and utilization in a mixed public-private system: the case of the Athens area. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006. p. 146.
16.
Ware J, Snow K, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Quality Metric Incorporated; 2000.
17.
Mcdowell I, Health. A guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. 3rd Edition. Oxford University Press; 2006.
18.
Ware J, Hays R. Methods for measuring patient satisfaction with specific medical encounters. Med Care. 1988. p. 393–402.
19.
Robine J. Trends in population health. Aging Cli-nExp Res. 2006. p. 349–51.
20.
Jokela M, Batty G, Kivimäki M. Ageing and the prevalence and treatment of mental health problems. Psychol Med. 2013. p. 2037–45.
21.
Sarvimäki A, Stenbock-Hult B. Quality of life in old age described as a sense of well-being, meaning and value. J AdvNurs. 2000. p. 1025–33.
22.
Molton I, Terrill A. Overview of persistent pain in older adults. Am Psychol. 2014. p. 197–207.
23.
AGS Panel on Persistent Pain in Older Persons. The management of persistent pain in older persons. J Am GeriatrSoc. 2002. p. 205–24.
24.
Hairi N, Cumming R, Blyth F, Naganathan V. Chronic pain, impact of pain and pain severity with physical disability in older people--is there a gender difference. Maturitas. 2013. p. 68–73.
25.
Parkar S. Elderly mental health: needs. Mens Sana Monogr. 2015. p. 91–9.
26.
Singh A, Misra N. Loneliness, depression and sociability in old age. IndustPsychiat J. 2009. p. 51–5.
27.
Cornwell E, Waite L. Social disconnectedness, perceived isolation, and health among older adults. J Health SocBehav. 2009. p. 31–48.
28.
Barnett I, Van Sluijs E, Ogilvie D. Physical activity and transitioning to retirement: a systematic review. Am J PrevMed. 2012. p. 329–36.
29.
Gilmour H. Social participation and the health and well-being of Canadian seniors. Health Rep. 2012. p. 23–32.
30.
St M, Sutton M, Gravelle H. Inequity and inequality in the use of health care in England: an empirical investigation. SocSci Med. 2005. p. 1251–66.
31.
Parslow R, Jorm A, Christensen H, Jacomb P. Rodgers B. Gender differences in factors affecting use of health services: an analysis of a community study of middle aged and older Australians. SocSci Med. 2004. p. 2121–9.
32.
Chou K, Chi. Factors associated with use of publicly funded services by Hong Kong Chinese older adults. SocSci Med. 2004. p. 1025–35.
33.
Hansen M, Fink P, Frydenberg M, Oxhøj M. Use of health services, mental illness, and self-rated disability and health in medical inpatients. Psychosom Med. 2002. p. 668–75.
34.
Thorpe J, Thorpe C, Kennelty K, Pandhi N. Patterns of perceived barriers to medical care in older adults: a latent class analysis. BMC Health Services Research. 2011. p. 181.
35.
Taylor D, Hoenig H. Access to health care services for the disabled elderly. Health Serv Res. 2006. p. 743–58.
36.
Iezzoni L, Mccarthy E, Davis R, Siebens H. Mobility impairments and use of screening and preventive services. Am J Public Health. 2000. p. 955–61.
37.
Fiscella K, Epstein R. So much to do, so little time: care for the socially disadvantaged and the 15-minute visit. Arch Intern Med. 2008. p. 1843–52.
38.
Kharicha K, Iliffe S, Harari D, Swift C, Gillmann G, Stuck A. Health risk appraisal in older people 1: are older people living alone an “at-risk” group? Br J Gen Pract. 2007. p. 271–6.
39.
Zhou C, Ji C, Chu J, Medina A, Li C, Jiang S, et al. Non-use of health care service among empty-nest elderly in Shandong, China: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015. p. 294.
40.
Amira Kurspahić-Mujčić.
41.
Katedra za socijalnu medicinu, Medicinski fakultet.
42.
Dom Zdravlja G, Vakuf-Uskoplje.
43.
Bosna i Hercegovina SAŽETAK Cilj Evaluirati utjecaj osam dimenzija samoprocjene zdravlja, mjerenih upitnikom SF-36, na posjete ljekaru porodične medicine kod osoba starijih od 65 godina. dvije dobne grupe:od 18 do 65 godina (n=100) i stariji od 65 godina (n=100). Kantonalni zavod za javno zdravstvo Zenica;
44.
Rezultati U grupi ispitanika u dobi od 18 do 65 godina najbolje je bila ocijenjena dimenzija koja se odnosila na fizičko funkcioniranje (79.1±25.6), a najlošije dimenzija koja se odnosila na vitalnost. p. 56–7.
45.
Skorovi na skalama općeg zdravlja.
46.
i socijalnog funkcioniranja (p=0.024) kod ispitanika starijih od 65 godina imali su signifikantan utjecaj na posjete ljekaru porodične medicine.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
