Impacto de los motivos comunes de consulta en el sentimiento de vitalidad y en el rendimiento físico de personas mayores de 65 años

1Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objectives. To measure two functional dimensions (vitality and physical function) involved in the quality of life of the over-65s and to find what relationship they maintain with the commonest reasons for consultation. Design. Cross-sectional, descriptive study. Setting. Primary care. Participants. Randomised sample of 179 patients over 65 from 14 primary care clinics in Navarra. Methods. SF-36 quality-of-life questionnaire and most common reasons for consultation. Personal and family details and ongoing drug prescription were also recorded. Results. The most common reasons for consultation were insomnia (31.8%), arthrosis (48%), and urinary symptoms (16.2%). The greatest differences in the SF-36 scales occurred in patients with insomnia. In the multiple regression models, inverse associations were found for each of the reasons for consultation with the vitality and physical function dimensions. Vitality was associated with urinary symptoms, with an adjusted beta coefficient of -11.2 points (95% CI, -18.6 to -3.7). Insomnia was associated with significant decline in vitality and physical function, with beta of -7.7 points (95% CI, -13.9 to -1.5) and -10.3 points (95% CI, -19.1 to -1.6), respectively. Arthrosis symptoms behaved in a similar way. Conclusions. The most common pathologies or symptoms causing primary care consultations in the over-65s affect significantly the quality-of-life dimensions relating to the pursuit of normal daily life.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sánchez Lasheras, T., Goñi Ruiz, N., Serrano-Martínez, M., Buil, P., Zabaleta, A., De Miguel, G., … Díez Espino, J. (2005). Impacto de los motivos comunes de consulta en el sentimiento de vitalidad y en el rendimiento físico de personas mayores de 65 años. Atencion Primaria, 35(5), 246–252. https://doi.org/10.1157/13072789

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free