Gender difference characteristics in the sociodemographic background of care recipients

Department of Geriatrics, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine.
Nippon Ronen Igakkai Zasshi Japanese Journal of Geriatrics 01/2010; 47(5):461-7. DOI: 10.3143/geriatrics.47.461
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We compared gender differences in the sociodemographic characteristics of community-dwelling dependent elderly who use various community-based services under long-term care insurance programs, as well as in mortality, hospitalization, and institutionalization during a 3-year follow-up period.
We conducted a cross-sectional study using the baseline data of 1,875 care recipients from the Nagoya Longitudinal Study for Frail Elderly (NLS-FE), and a prospective study using their 3-year follow-up data. The data, which were collected at the patients' homes or from care-managing center records, included the clients' and caregivers' demographic characteristics, living arrangements, community-based services used, depression as assessed by the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15), a rating for basic activities of daily living (ADL), and comorbidities. The data included, at 3-year follow-up, all-cause mortality, hospitalization, and institutionalization.
Among 1,875 care recipients 66.3% were women. They had a higher rate of living alone (26.2% vs 14.6% in men), and a lower rate of receiving care by a spouse (22.1% vs. 73.6% of men). Although there were no differences in ADL levels or GDS-15 scores between genders, a higher Charlson comorbidity index, higher prevalence of cerebrovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and cancer were observed in the male care recipients. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that during the 3-year follow-up, higher mortality, hospitalization, and lower institutionalization rates were observed in men.
We observed that two thirds of care recipients were women. Compared with male recipients, female recipients were more likely to live alone, and to be cared for by non-spouse caregivers. Lower mortality and hospitalization, but higher institutionalization, were observed in female recipients.

3 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to develop a prospectively applicable method for classifying comorbid conditions which might alter the risk of mortality for use in longitudinal studies. A weighted index that takes into account the number and the seriousness of comorbid disease was developed in a cohort of 559 medical patients. The 1-yr mortality rates for the different scores were: "0", 12% (181); "1-2", 26% (225); "3-4", 52% (71); and "greater than or equal to 5", 85% (82). The index was tested for its ability to predict risk of death from comorbid disease in the second cohort of 685 patients during a 10-yr follow-up. The percent of patients who died of comorbid disease for the different scores were: "0", 8% (588); "1", 25% (54); "2", 48% (25); "greater than or equal to 3", 59% (18). With each increased level of the comorbidity index, there were stepwise increases in the cumulative mortality attributable to comorbid disease (log rank chi 2 = 165; p less than 0.0001). In this longer follow-up, age was also a predictor of mortality (p less than 0.001). The new index performed similarly to a previous system devised by Kaplan and Feinstein. The method of classifying comorbidity provides a simple, readily applicable and valid method of estimating risk of death from comorbid disease for use in longitudinal studies. Further work in larger populations is still required to refine the approach because the number of patients with any given condition in this study was relatively small.
    Journal of Chronic Diseases 02/1987; 40(5):373-83. DOI:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Projected demographic shifts in the US population over the next 50 years will cause families, health care practitioners, and policymakers to confront a marked increase in the number of people with disabilities living in the community. Concerns about the adequacy of community support are particularly salient to women, who make up a disproportionate number of disabled elderly people and who may be particularly vulnerable because they are more likely to live alone with limited financial resources. To address gender differences in receipt of informal and formal home care. Nationally representative survey conducted in 1993 among 7443 noninstitutionalized people (4538 women and 2905 men) aged 70 years or older. Number of hours per week of informal (generally unpaid) and formal (generally paid) home care received by survey participants who reported any activity of daily living (ADL) or instrumental activity of daily living (IADL) impairment (n = 3109) compared by gender and living arrangement and controlling for other factors. Compared with disabled men, disabled women were much more likely to be living alone (45.4% vs 16.8%, P<.001) and much less likely to be living with a spouse (27.8% vs 73.6%, P<.001). Overall, women received fewer hours of informal care per week than men (15.7 hours; 95% confidence interval [CI], 14.5-16.9 vs 21.2 hours; 95% CI, 19. 7-22.8). Married disabled women received many fewer hours per week of informal home care than married disabled men (14.8 hours; 95% CI, 13.7-15.8 vs 26.2 hours; 95% CI, 24.6-27.9). Children (>80% women) were the dominant caregivers for disabled women while wives were the dominant caregivers of disabled men. Gender differences in formal home care were small (2.8 hours for women; 95% CI, 2.5-3.1 vs 2.1 hours for men; 95% CI, 1.7-2.4). Large gender disparities appear to exist in the receipt of informal home care for disabled elderly people in the United States, even within married households. Programs providing home care support for disabled elderly people need to consider these large gender disparities and the burden they impose on families when developing intervention strategies in the community.
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 12/2000; 284(23):3022-7. · 35.29 Impact Factor
  • Maryland state medical journal 03/1965; 14(1):61-5.