Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 1 de 1
Filter
Add filters








Year range
1.
Rev. Soc. Bras. Clín. Méd ; 15(3): 146-149, 20170000. ilus, tab
Article in Portuguese | LILACS | ID: biblio-875192

ABSTRACT

OBJETIVO: Identificar a contribuição dos domínios físico, psicológico, social e ambiental para a qualidade de vida de idosos. MÉTODOS: Pesquisa transversal e observacional. As entrevistas foram realizadas com 90 idosos cadastrados no Centro Saúde Escola do Marco, em Belém (PA), no ano de 2012. Utilizou-se protocolo de pesquisa criado pela Organização Mundial de Saúde denominado World Health Organization Quality of Life, em sua forma abreviada (WHOQOL-Bref ). RESULTADOS: Dentre os entrevistados, 44,4% consideravam sua qualidade de vida boa/muito boa, 23,8% ruim/muito ruim e 31,7% nem ruim nem boa. Os domínios que mais contribuíram para a qualidade de vida global foram o físico e o social. Os domínios psicológico e ambiental não apresentaram importância significativa. A faixa etária predominante entre os entrevistados foi de 65 a 69 anos (54,4%) e, quanto ao sexo, o feminino representou 64% do total de entrevistados. A maioria dos idosos era de cor parda (44,8%), e analfabetos ou semianalfabetos foram predominantes (35,5%). CONCLUSÃO: O domínio físico, seguido do social, apresentou maior contribuição, ao passo que os domínios psicológico e ambiental obtiveram contribuição insignificante para a qualidade de vida dos idosos entrevistados.(AU)


OBJECTIVE: To identify the contribution of physical, psychological, social and environmental domains to the quality of life of the elderly. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, observational study. Interviews were conducted with 90 elderly enrolled in Marco School Health Center in the city of Belém, state of Pará, in 2012. We used the research protocol established by the World Health Organization (WHO), called WHO Quality of Life (WHOQOL-Bref ). RESULTS: It was found that 44.4% of the respondents considered their quality of life good/very good, while 23.8% considered it poor/very poor, and 31.7% neither bad nor good. It is also noted that the areas that contributed most to the overall quality of life were the physical and social ones. The psychological and environmental domains showed no significant importance. The age of respondents was 65 to 69 years (54.4%) and, in terms of gender, the females were 64% of the respondents. Most elderly people were black (44.8%), and the level of education that prevailed was the illiterate or semiliterate (35.5%). CONCLUSION: The physical domain, followed by the social one, showed greater contribution, whereas the psychological and environmental domains showed insignificant contribution to the quality of life of elderly respondents.(AU)


Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Aged , Aging/psychology , Quality of Life , Socioeconomic Factors , Health Services for the Aged
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL