Skip to main content
Erschienen in: BMC Geriatrics 1/2020

Open Access 01.12.2020 | Research article

Impact of urine and mixed incontinence on long-term care preference: a vignette-survey study of community-dwelling older adults

verfasst von: Nicolas Carvalho, Sarah Fustinoni, Nazanin Abolhassani, Juan Manuel Blanco, Lionel Meylan, Brigitte Santos-Eggimann

Erschienen in: BMC Geriatrics | Ausgabe 1/2020

Abstract

Background

In view of population aging, a better knowledge of factors influencing the type of long-term care (LTC) among older adults is necessary. Previous studies reported a close relationship between incontinence and institutionalization, but little is known on opinions of older citizens regarding the most appropriate place of care. This study aimed at evaluating the impact of urine and/or fecal incontinence on preferences of community–dwelling older citizens.

Methods

We derived data from the Lausanne cohort 65+, a population-based study of individuals aged from 68 to 82 years. A total of 2974 community-dwelling persons were interviewed in 2017 on the most appropriate place of LTC delivery for three vignettes displaying a fixed level of disability with varying degrees of incontinence (none, urinary, urinary and fecal). Multinomial logistic regression analyses explored the effect of respondents’ characteristics on their opinion according to Andersen’s model.

Results

The level of incontinence described in vignettes strongly determined the likelihood of considering institutional care as most appropriate. Respondents’ characteristics such as age, gender, educational level, being a caregiver, knowledge of shelter housing or feeling supported by family influenced LTC choices. Self-reported incontinence and other indicators of respondents’ need, however, had no significant independent effect.

Conclusion

Among older community-dwelling citizens, urinary and fecal incontinence play a decisive role in the perception of a need for institutionalization. Prevention and early initiation of support for sufferers may be a key to prevent this need and ensure familiar surrounding as long as possible.
Hinweise

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abkürzungen
ADL
Activities of daily living
BADL
Basic activities of daily living
CHCC
Community health care centers
FI
Fecal incontinence
H
Usual home
IADL
Instrumental activities of daily living
ISCED
International Standard Classification of Education
LC65 +
Lausanne cohort 65+
LTC
Long-term care
NH
Nursing home
RRR
Relative risk ratio
SH
Sheltered home
UI
Urinary incontinence
VIF
Variance inflation factor

Background

Increasing public spending on long-term care (LTC) is a major economic issue that must be addressed [1]. Since the Switzerland monthly cost is 15 times higher per resident in nursing homes (NH) than for people staying at home [2], many authorities have implemented measures whose primary objective is to keep people at home as long as possible, while maintaining a good quality of life and ensuring access to appropriate care. As a result, over the last decade in Switzerland, the rate of long-term institutional care has fallen from 6.4 to 5.8% among those aged 65 and over and from 17.9 to 16.8% for those aged 80 and over [3]. However, a shift towards home care is not observed in the same proportions across Switzerland. There are still clear differences between French-speaking and German-speaking regions, the latter being characterized by a higher level of use of nursing homes and a lower level of home care [4]. Despite efforts to develop home care and support services, the demand for institutionalization is growing due to the increasing number of seniors and represents a significant challenge for the health system.
Causes for admission to NH are multiple and result from complex interactions between the person’s characteristics, caregivers, service providers and environment [5, 6]. According to Andersen’s model of access to care [7], factors involved in the choice between various options of LTC (e.g. delivered at home or in institutional setting) can be clustered into three broad categories: (1) predisposing factors representing socio-cultural characteristics of individuals prior to their illness; (2) enabling factors corresponding to logistical aspects of obtaining care and (3) need factors that represent functional and health problems.
Among need factors, incontinence has been identified as a potential predictor of institutionalization independently of other factors such as age, low self-rated health or functional impairments [8, 9]. However, these results were obtained in older patients while they entered in a NH, were partly inconsistent, and focused mainly on the presence of urinary disorders. Urinary incontinence (UI) and fecal incontinence (FI) are prevalent health conditions in old age and, although they may compromise the quality of life and increase caregivers’ burden [10, 11], they are often overlooked [12].
From a public health policy perspective, a better understanding of the role of UI and/or FI on older adults’ choices between LTC options, and of the factors associated with preferences, may help to identify targets for interventions to further reduce the share of institutionalization in LTC. The objective of the present study was to assess the impact of incontinence on LTC choices among community-dwelling older citizens. We hypothesized that: (i) UI and FI as components of needs for help and care both have an impact on the place of LTC considered as most appropriate and (ii) respondents’ predisposing, enabling and need factors, classified according to Andersen’s model, change LTC preferences.

Methods

Study population

Data on LTC choices were collected from January to April 2017 in the population of Lausanne (Switzerland), a city of 140,000 inhabitants. This study used a questionnaire on care mailed to all 3535 community-dwelling participants aged 68 to 82 years from the Lausanne cohort 65+ (Lc65+), a population-based study conducted on random samples drawn from the population register [13]. The response rate was 90.5% (n = 3195). Responses to the questionnaire on care were linked to the Lc65+ database providing additional information on participants’ characteristics collected at baseline (nationality, education) and in 2016. All information was self-reported. Prior to the data clean-up, 203 individuals (6.4% of observations) who had not answered questions relating to at least one of the three vignettes selected in this study were excluded and 18 were excluded for non-participation in 2016, leaving 2974 respondents for analysis. The study protocol was approved by the Vaud Ethics committee for human research (PB_2016–02506).

Vignettes and LTC options

According to pre-tested methods [14], the questionnaire on care included a set of 10 vignettes displaying diverse needs for LTC, ordered by their level of severity. Of these, 3 vignettes presented a person with a same level of disability moderately affecting basic activities of daily living (moderate BADL), who lived with an able-bodied spouse. This fixed component included needs for help in preparing meals, housekeeping, shopping for groceries, getting out of bed in the morning, bathing and dressing, with preserved ability to get up from a chair and to walk inside. The 3 vignettes varied on continence status. The first (hereafter BADL only) was limited to the fixed component and did not mention continence problems. The second added the presence of UI (BADL+UI). The third added mixed (urinary and fecal) incontinence (BADL+MI). These vignettes specified that the person could not manage alone his or her incontinence.
After each vignette, the question “what arrangement do you think is the best” was asked, followed by the following possible responses: home (Home), sheltered house (SH), and nursing home (NH). The respondent’s choice was regarded as the dependent variable. The definition of SH provided within the survey questionnaire referred to a private apartment offering: 1) an adapted architecture, 2) an alarm system and 3) community spaces. Community health care centers (CHCC) or other home care organizations can supply assistance such as housework, meals at home and care.

Anderson model factors

In accordance with Andersen’s model, respondents were assessed on three groups of independent variables: predisposing, enabling and need factors.
Predisposing factors included: gender; age group (68–72 / 73–77 / 78–82 years); nationality (Swiss / other / Swiss and other nationality); and educational level (compulsory schooling, corresponding to the International Standard Classification of Education ISCED 0–2 [15] / apprenticeship (ISCED 3) / baccalaureate (ISCED 4) / professional diploma (ISCED 6–7) / university or above (ISCED 8)).
Enabling factors included: caregiver role based on the question “Do you live with a person needing help?” (no / yes); financial problems based on a positive answer to the “Financial difficulties” item in a list of stressful life events experienced in the past 12 months; anxiety based on the question “During the past 4 weeks, have you often felt preoccupied and anxious? ” (no / yes); depression based on a reported medical diagnosis in the past 12 months or a positive response to either of the following two questions related to the past 4 weeks: “Have you often felt sad, depressed or discouraged? ” (no / yes) and “Have you often felt a lack of interest or pleasure in your usual activities? ” (no / yes); isolation feelings based on the question “During the past 4 weeks, how often did you feel isolated? ” (always, very often, often categorized into much / sometimes, rarely categorized into some / never); household composition based on the question “How many people do you live with?” followed by a list of cohabitants (categorized into living alone / with spouse, or with spouse and others categorized as with spouse / with others); support from family based on the question “With how many people in the family do you feel close enough to ask for help” (none labeled as no / one or more individuals labeled as yes); potential informal care assessed by the question “In case of long-term health problems, by whom could you possibly be helped? ” (spouse only / other family only / others / none / multiple responses); knowledge of SH [or CHCC] respectively evaluated by two similar questions “Do you know what a SH [CHCC] is, and what it can offer? ” (yes very well, rather yes categorized into yes / rather no, not at all categorized into no).
Five variables were considered as need factors: cognitive difficulty defined by any self-report of memory trouble affecting the daily life or difficulty concentrating selected in a list of troubles lasting 6 months or more; mobility difficulty based on a positive response to any of the following two questions “Do you have difficulty walking 100m [or climbing a flight of stairs without stopping] for health reasons? ” (none / some, much categorized into yes); chronic diseases defined by the number of reported conditions diagnosed by a physician, disturbing or treated in the past 12 months, selected in a list (hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, coronary artery disease, other cardiac disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, chronic pulmonary disease, osteoporosis, arthritis and cancer) categorized into 0 / 1 / 2 and more conditions; difficulties in activities of daily living (ADL) based on reported difficulties or help in five instrumental activities (IADL) [16] and five basic activities (BADL) [17], categorized into no ADL difficulty / IADL difficulty only / BADL difficulty. Incontinence was defined by self-report of involuntary urine loss bothering since at least 6 months.

Statistics

Friedman’s test was first used to check differences in the distribution of respondents’ preference for care options across the 3 vignettes. Post-hoc McNemar’s test was used for 2 × 2 analysis of differences.
In order to investigate the effect of respondents’ characteristics on their choices, Andersen’s model variables were screened for inclusion in multivariable regression models based on their bivariate association with the outcome.
Finally, we applied multinomial logistic regression models to predict LTC choices for each of the three vignettes separately, controlling for all Andersen’s model variables selected by bivariate analyses. For each vignette, SH was the base outcome. The relative risk ratio (RRR) Home vs SH indicates the effect of respondents’ characteristics on choices expressed among participants who selected either one of these two community-based options. Likewise, RRR NH vs SH describes the effects of these characteristics among those who selected either one of these two options implying a move from the usual home. We checked the variance inflation factor (VIF) and the tolerance as an indicator of multicollinearity. No collinearity between the variables was found, as the mean of VIF was less than 2 [18].
The significance alpha level was fixed to 0.05. All computations were performed using Stata Software release 15.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

Results

Profile of participants

Table 1 shows the characteristics of the sample. The majority of respondents were female (58.7%), 41.7% were aged between 69 and 73 years and 90.2% were Swiss. Education was limited to compulsory schooling for 15.5% of participants, 36.5 reported university or professional degrees and 48.0% had completed an intermediate level. 9.6% of participants reported difficulties in IADL only and 14.8% in BADL. Incontinence was mentioned by 13.9% of respondents. Out of 2974 survey participants, 96.2% responded for the BADL only vignette, 97.7% for the BADL+UI vignette and 97.1% for the BADL+MI vignette.
Table 1
Descriptive characteristics of survey participants (n = 2974) according to Andersen’s modela
 
N (%)
Predisposing factors
 Gender
  Men
1229 (41.3)
  Women
1745 (58.7)
 Age group
  68–72
1239 (41.7)
  73–77
964 (32.4)
  78–82
771 (25.9)
 Nationality
  Swiss
2303 (77.6)
  Other
290 (9.8)
  Swiss and other nationality
373 (12.6)
 Educational level
  Compulsory schooling (ISCED 0–2)
460 (15.5)
  Apprenticeship (ISCED 3)
1176 (39.6)
  Baccalaureate (ISCED 4)
250 (8.4)
  Professional diploma (ISCED 6–7)
506 (17.0)
  University or above (ISCED 8)
579 (19.5)
Enabling factors
 Caregiver role
  Yes
211 (7.2)
 Financial problems
  Yes
179 (6.1)
 Knowledge of SH
  Yes
2422 (82.9)
 Knowledge of CHCC
  Yes
2456 (84.3)
 Anxiety
  Yes
790 (26.7)
 Depression
  Yes
721 (24.5)
 Isolation feelings
  Never
1416 (47.7)
  Some
1344 (45.3)
  Much
209 (7.0)
 Household composition
  Alone
1178 (40.0)
  With spouse
1684 (57.1)
  With others
86 (2.9)
 Support from family
  Yes
2647 (90.1)
 Potential informal care
  Spouse only
710 (24.1)
  Other family only
445 (15.1)
  Others
253 (8.6)
  None
331 (11.2)
  Multiple responses
1209 (41.0)
Need factors
 Cognitive difficulty
  Yes
404 (13.7)
 Incontinence
  Yes
410 (13.9)
 Chronic disease (s)
  0
918 (31.)
  1
924 (31.2)
  2 or more
1117 (37.8)
 Mobility difficulty
  Yes
514 (17.5)
 ADL limitation
  No ADL difficulty
2223 (75.7)
  IADL difficulty only
281 (9.6)
  BADL difficulty
434 (14.8)
Place of LTC delivery: SH sheltered house, NH, nursing home
Respondents’ characteristics: ISCED international standard classification of education, CHCC community health care center, ADL activities of daily living, IADL instrumental activities of daily living, BADL basic activities of daily living, UI urine incontinence, MI mixed (urine and fecal) incontinence
aAndersen, R. M. (1995). Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter? J Health Soc Behav, 36(1), 1–10

Effect of incontinence displayed in the vignette

There was a significant difference in LTC choices depending on incontinence severity displayed in the vignette (Friedman test, p < 0.001) (Fig. 1). Post hoc analysis with McNemar test revealed that the proportion of persons who chose Home decreased significantly (from 67.3 to 24.1%, p < 0.001) and the proportion of people who chose NH increased significantly (from 6.6 to 50.1%, p < 0.001) from the BADL only vignette to the BADL+MI vignette. The proportion of people choosing SH did no change significantly between the 3 vignette, SH option was selected by 26% of the participants for the first and the third vignette and by 33.1% for the intermediate (BADL+UI).

Effect of respondents’ characteristics

Table 2 shows that in all subgroups defined by respondents’ own characteristics, an absolute majority selected the Home option for the BADL only vignette while the most frequent choice, if not always reaching absolute majority, was NH for the BADL+MI vignette. However, Table 2 also displays bivariate differences among older people choosing Home, SH or NH. Gender and educational level were predisposing factors related to choices for all 3 vignettes while age influenced opinions only for the two vignettes mentioning incontinence. Caregiver role, household composition, and potential informal care were selected as enabling factors in analyses for the 3 vignettes. Knowledge of SH was a significant enabling factor for the two vignettes mentioning incontinence, depression and support from family for the BADL only vignette, financial problems for the BADL and BADL+MI vignettes and knowledge of CHCC for the BADL+MI vignette. Among needs factors, respondents’ self-reported cognitive and mobility difficulties were significantly associated with their LTC choices for the BADL+MI vignette. The number of chronic diseases, ADL difficulties or UI self-reported by respondents had no influence on their opinions for the three vignettes.
Table 2
Effect of older adults’ characteristics on their opinion regarding the most appropriate long-term care option (Home, sheltered house (SH) or nursing home (NH)) expressed for 3 vignettes: bivariate analysis
 
BADL (N = 2861)
BADL+UI (N = 2907)
BADL+MI (N = 2888)
N
Home (1925)
SH (747)
NH (189)
p
N
Home (1161)
SH (961)
NH (785)
p
N
Home (697)
SH (745)
NH (1446)
p
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
Predisposing factors
 Gender
2861
    
2907
    
2888
    
  Men
1168
72.3
21.7
6.1
0.000
1201
46.2
31.0
22.8
0.000
1195
28.5
26.4
45.0
0.000
  Women
1693
63.9
29.2
7.0
 
1706
35.5
34.5
30.0
 
1693
21.0
25.3
53.6
 
 Age group
2861
    
2907
    
2888
    
  68–72
1194
67.8
26.0
6.2
0.856
1210
38.2
35.6
26.2
0.006
1206
20.2
27.8
52.0
0.000
  73–77
932
67.2
26.4
6.4
 
955
39.3
34.1
26.6
 
942
24.1
24.2
51.7
 
  78–82
735
66.7
25.9
7.5
 
742
43.7
27.5
28.8
 
740
30.5
24.6
44.9
 
 Nationality
2854
    
2899
    
2880
    
  Swiss
2223
68.0
25.6
6.5
0.301
2252
39.2
32.7
28.1
0.090
2239
23.6
25.0
51.4
0.067
  Other
277
62.8
28.5
8.7
 
284
45.4
32.8
21.8
 
279
28.3
28.3
43.4
 
  Swiss and other nationality
354
66.1
28.2
5.7
 
363
39.7
35.8
24.5
 
362
23.8
29.0
47.2
 
 Educational level
2860
    
2904
    
2885
    
  Compulsory schooling (ISCED 0–2)
434
65.2
24.0
10.8
0.002
442
41.0
29.0
30.1
0.004
439
31.2
23.7
45.1
0.003
  Apprenticeship (ISCED 3)
1128
65.6
27.7
6.7
 
1147
40.3
31.0
28.8
 
1134
24.8
23.9
51.3
 
  Baccalaureate (ISCED 4)
241
65.6
30.7
3.7
 
248
32.7
43.2
24.2
 
242
19.8
26.9
53.3
 
  Professional diploma (ISCED 6–7)
493
70.2
24.3
5.5
 
496
41.3
34.5
24.2
 
497
21.7
28.4
49.9
 
  University or above (ISCED 8)
564
70.6
24.1
5.3
 
571
40.3
35.0
24.7
 
573
21.1
28.6
50.3
 
Enabling factors
 Caregiver role
2820
    
2861
    
2843
    
  No
2612
66.7
26.6
6.7
0.032
2655
39.2
33.6
27.2
0.012
2639
23.1
26.0
50.9
0.000
  Yes
208
75.5
19.2
5.3
 
206
49.0
25.2
25.7
 
204
36.8
22.6
40.7
 
 Financial problems
2843
    
2890
    
2871
    
  No
2676
67.8
25.9
6.4
0.039
2720
39.5
33.3
27.2
0.489
2701
23.4
26.0
50.6
0.014
  Yes
167
59.3
30.5
10.2
 
170
44.1
31.2
24.7
 
170
32.9
25.3
41.8
 
Enabling factors
 Knowledge of SH
2817
    
2862
    
2841
    
  No
475
69.7
23.4
6.9
0.294
485
44.3
33.6
22.1
0.014
485
32.2
21.4
46.4
0.000
  Yes
2342
66.7
26.8
6.4
 
2377
38.8
33.1
28.1
 
2356
21.8
26.8
51.4
 
 Knowledge of CHCC
2806
    
2853
    
2831
    
  No
427
68.6
25.1
6.3
0.789
441
41.7
34.7
23.6
0.179
435
32.4
22.3
45.3
0.000
  Yes
2379
66.9
26.4
6.6
 
2412
39.3
32.8
27.9
 
2396
22.0
26.4
51.7
 
 Anxiety
2841
    
2887
    
2869
    
  No
2085
67.9
25.7
6.5
0.684
2121
39.4
33.5
27.1
0.592
2105
23.4
26.0
50.6
0.216
  Yes
756
66.1
27.1
6.8
 
766
41.5
32.1
26.4
 
764
26.6
25.3
48.2
 
 Depression
2835
    
2880
    
2861
    
  No
2148
68.7
25.1
6.2
0.013
2186
40.0
33.3
26.7
0.834
2175
24.4
25.7
50.1
0.941
  Yes
687
62.7
29.3
8.0
 
694
39.1
33.1
27.8
 
686
23.8
26.1
50.2
 
 Isolation feelings
2856
    
2902
    
2883
    
  Never
1372
69.3
24.7
6.0
0.167
1387
40.3
32.5
27.2
0.812
1377
22.7
25.1
52.2
0.064
  Some
1293
64.9
28.0
7.1
 
1316
39.3
33.4
27.4
 
1308
25.1
25.9
49.0
 
  Much
190
68.4
24.2
7.4
 
199
41.7
34.7
23.6
 
198
28.8
29.3
41.9
 
 Household composition
2841
    
2884
    
2863
    
  Alone
1130
60.8
29.9
9.3
0.000
1152
31.9
34.9
33.2
0.000
1137
19.8
25.0
55.2
0.000
  With spouse
1630
72.3
23.0
4.7
 
1646
45.7
31.5
22.8
 
1642
27.2
26.4
46.4
 
  With others
81
60.5
34.6
4.9
 
86
36.1
39.5
24.4
 
84
21.4
27.4
51.2
 
 Support from family
2824
    
2870
    
2851
    
  No
277
62.8
24.2
13.0
0.000
279
38.4
33.7
28.0
0.869
272
29.4
23.9
46.7
0.086
  Yes
2547
67.8
26.2
5.9
 
2591
39.9
33.2
26.9
 
2579
23.4
26.1
50.5
 
Enabling factors
 Potential informal care
2836
    
2882
    
2863
    
  Spouse only
676
71.0
24.1
4.9
0.000
690
48.7
30.1
21.2
0.000
690
30.6
24.9
44.5
0.000
  Other family only
419
60.4
32.5
7.2
 
435
33.6
35.4
31.0
 
431
24.8
24.8
50.4
 
  Others
242
63.6
26.0
10.3
 
246
36.2
33.7
30.1
 
239
21.3
23.0
55.7
 
  None
326
59.2
30.4
10.4
 
322
28.0
37.0
35.1
 
317
16.4
25.2
58.4
 
  Multiple responses
1173
71.2
23.4
5.5
 
1189
41.6
32.3
26.1
 
1186
22.9
27.3
49.8
 
Need factors
 Cognitive difficulty
2837
    
2883
    
2865
    
  No
2458
67.6
25.8
6.7
0.783
2494
39.6
33.4
27.0
0.399
2477
23.2
25.7
51.1
0.017
  Yes
379
66.0
27.4
6.6
 
389
42.4
30.1
27.5
 
388
29.6
25.3
45.1
 
 Incontinence
2837
    
2883
    
2865
    
  No
2450
67.6
25.8
6.6
0.738
2485
40.3
32.8
26.9
0.660
2467
24.4
25.5
50.1
0.673
  Yes
387
65.6
27.4
7.0
 
398
37.9
33.7
28.4
 
398
22.4
26.6
51.0
 
 Chronic disease (s)
2846
    
2892
    
2873
    
  0
887
69.1
24.9
6.0
0.347
896
39.4
32.4
28.2
0.821
894
23.0
26.7
50.2
0.647
  1
883
65.0
27.3
7.7
 
902
40.5
32.7
26.8
 
894
23.4
26.4
50.2
 
  2 and more
1076
67.5
26.3
6.2
 
1094
39.7
34.2
26.1
 
1085
25.5
24.7
49.8
 
 Mobility difficulty
2817
    
2866
    
2847
    
  No
2342
67.9
25.8
6.3
0.192
2372
39.9
33.3
26.9
0.883
2355
22.8
26.2
50.9
0.001
  Yes
475
64.4
27.4
8.2
 
494
41.1
32.6
26.3
 
492
30.7
23.8
45.5
 
 ADL limitation
2825
    
2873
    
2855
    
  No ADL difficulty
2149
68.1
25.5
6.4
0.398
2185
40.1
33.2
26.7
0.870
2170
23.0
26.1
50.9
0.124
  IADL difficulty only
274
63.9
27.4
8.8
 
270
37.8
33.3
28.9
 
266
25.9
23.3
50.8
 
  BADL difficulty
402
65.4
28.1
6.5
 
418
41.4
31.6
27.0
 
419
28.4
25.8
45.8
 
The 3 vignettes presented a person with a same level of disability moderately affecting basic activities of daily living (moderate BADL), who lived with an able-bodied spouse. This fixed component included needs for help in preparing meals, housekeeping, shopping for groceries, getting out of bed in the morning, bathing and dressing, with preserved ability to get up from a chair and to walk inside. The 3 vignettes varied on continence. The first (hereafter BADL only) was limited to the fixed component and did not mention continence problems. The second added the presence of urine incontinence (BADL + UI). The third added mixed (urinary and fecal) incontinence (BADL + MI). Information given in the vignette specified that the disabled person could not manage alone his or her incontinence and lives with an able-bodied spouse
Place of LTC delivery: SH sheltered house, NH nursing home
Repondants’ characteristics: ISCED international standard classification of education, CHCC community health care center, ADL activities of daily living, IADL instrumental activities of daily living, BADL basic activities of daily living, UI urine incontinence, MI mixed incontinence
Table 3 reports relative risk ratios for Andersen’s model factors included in separate multinomial logistic regressions corresponding to the three vignettes.
Table 3
Effect of older adults’ characteristics on their opinion regarding the most appropriate long-term care option (Home, sheltered house (SH) or nursing home (NH)) expressed for 3 vignettes: multinomial logit regressions
 
BADL N = 2703
BADL+UI N = 2781
BADL+MI N = 2668
Home vs SH
NH vs SH
Home vs SH
NH vs SH
Home vs SH
NH vs SH
RRR
95 CI%
RRR
95 CI%
RRR
95 CI%
RRR
95 CI%
RRR
95 CI%
RRR
95 CI%
Predisposing factors
 Gender
   (Men)
            
  Women
0.74**
0.60–0.90
0.65*
0.45–0.96
0.80*
0.65–0.97
1.02
0.82–1.27
0.86
0.67–1.10
1.16
0.94–1.42
 Age group
   (68–72)
            
  73–77
    
1.11
0.90–1.36
1.05
0.83–1.31
1.44**
1.11–1.87
1.14
0.92–1.41
  78–82
    
1.41**
1.12–1.78
1.31*
1.02–1.68
1.63**
1.23–2.16
0.93
0.73–1.18
 Educational level
   (Compulsory schooling) (ISCED 0–2)
            
  Apprenticeship (ISCED 3)
0.72*
0.54–0.96
0.50**
0.32–0.80
0.80
0.60–1.06
0.84
0.62–1.14
0.81
0.58–1.13
1.08
0.80–1.46
  Baccalaureate (ISCED 4)
0.76
0.52–1.11
0.28**
0.12–0.61
0.50***
0.34–0.74
0.51**
0.34–0.76
0.63
0.39–1.02
0.95
0.63–1.41
  Professional diploma (ISCED 6–7)
0.88
0.63–1.22
0.46**
0.26–0.82
0.70*
0.51–0.96
0.64*
0.45–0.91
0.59**
0.40–0.88
0.91
0.65–1.28
  University or above (ISCED 8)
0.80
0.58–1.11
0.43**
0.24–0.76
0.71*
0.51–0.97
0.70*
0.49–0.99
0.64*
0.44–0.95
0.95
0.68–1.32
Enabling factors
 Caregiver role
   (No)
            
  Yes
1.43
0.97–2.10
1.42
0.68–2.96
1.61*
1.11–2.34
1.43
0.93–2.18
1.58*
1.03–2.42
0.99
0.67–1.47
 Financial problems
   (No)
            
  Yes
0.97
0.66–1.43
1.45
0.78–2.69
    
1.42
0.90–2.24
0.89
0.59–1.35
 Depression
   (No)
            
  Yes
0.84
0.68–1.03
0.97
0.67–1.43
        
 Knowledge of SH
            
   (No)
            
  Yes
    
0.94
0.75–1.19
1.30
0.98–1.71
0.70*
0.50–0.98
0.84
0.62–1.13
 Knowledge of CHCC
   (No)
            
  Yes
        
0.67*
0.47–0.96
0.96
0.70–1.32
Enabling factors
 Household composition
  (Alone)
            
  With spouse
1.26
0.97–1.63
0.58*
0.35–0.95
1.11
0.85–1.43
0.71*
0.54–0.95
1.12
0.81–1.56
0.86
0.65–1.12
  With Others
0.89
0.53–1.49
0.50
0.17–1.52
0.91
0.54–1.54
0.56
0.31–1.02
1.02
0.49–2.09
0.97
0.54–1.75
 Potential informal care
   (Spouse only)
            
  Other family only
0.92
0.64–1.31
0.87
0.43–1.75
0.66*
0.46–0.95
0.88
0.59–1.31
0.82
0.53–1.29
0.96
0.65–1.40
  Others
1.24
0.81–1.90
1.50
0.71–3.17
0.82
0.54–1.25
0.97
0.62–1.53
0.96
0.56–1.63
1.15
0.74–1.79
  None
0.97
0.66–1.42
1.14
0.56–2.32
0.56*
0.38–0.84
1.01
0.67–1.53
0.57*
0.35–0.95
1.13
0.76–1.69
  Multiples responses
1.19
0.93–1.52
1.17
0.70–1.95
0.88
0.70–1.11
1.04
0.79–1.37
0.79
0.59–1.05
0.98
0.76–1.26
 Support from family
  (No)
            
  Yes
0.94
0.68–1.31
0.56*
0.34–0.93
        
Need factors
 Cognitive difficulty
  (No)
            
  Yes
        
1.21
0.88–1.66
0.90
0.68–1.19
 Mobility difficulty
  (No)
            
  Yes
        
1.22
0.90–1.65
0.98
0.76–1.28
Legend Table 3: The 3 vignettes presented a person with a same level of disability moderately affecting basic activities of daily living (moderate BADL), who lived with an able-bodied spouse. This fixed component included needs for help in preparing meals, housekeeping, shopping for groceries, getting out of bed in the morning, bathing and dressing, with preserved ability to get up from a chair and to walk inside. The 3 vignettes varied on continence. The first (hereafter BADL only) was limited to the fixed component and did not mention continence problems. The second added the presence of urine incontinence (BADL + UI). The third added mixed (urinary and fecal) incontinence (BADL + MI). Information given in the vignette specified that the disabled person could not manage alone his or her incontinence and lives with an able-bodied spouse
For each vignette, SH was the base outcome
Place of LTC delivery: SH, sheltered house; NH, nursing home
Respondents’ characteristics: ISCED international standard classification of education, CHCC community health care center, ADL activities of daily living, IADL instrumental activities of daily living, BADL basic activities of daily living, UI urine incontinence, MI mixed incontinence
RRR relative risk ratio, 95 CI% 95 confidence interval;
() refers to the base
*p < .05
**p < .01
***p < .001

Predisposing factors

Home vs SH

Among respondents who selected one of the two community-based options (Home or SH), women were less likely than men to choose Home for both the BADL only and the BADL+UI vignettes. Participants reporting apprenticeship were also less likely to choose Home for the BADL only vignette than those with education limited to compulsory schooling, as did participants with baccalaureate, professional diploma or higher educational level for the BADL+UI vignette, and participants with professional diploma or higher educational level for the BADL+MI vignette. By contrast, older participants chose Home more frequently than the youngest for the BADL+UI and the BADL+MI vignettes.

NH vs SH

Among respondents who did not consider Home as the most appropriate option (i.e. choosing either SH or NH), women and those with more than compulsory schooling were less likely to choose NH than men and respondents with the lowest level of education for the BADL only vignette. Participants with higher levels of education (baccalaureate, professional diploma or higher) were also less likely to choose NH for the BADL+UI vignette than respondents with education limited to compulsory schooling, while the oldest preferred the NH option more often than the younger in this case.

Enabling factor

Home vs SH

Among respondents who selected one of the two community-based options, caregivers were more likely to choose Home than those who did not report a caregiver’s role both for the BADL+UI and the BADL+MI vignettes. By contrast, for these two vignettes, participants with poor perspective of receiving informal care chose SH more than those expecting help from a spouse in case of need. For the BADL+MI vignette, participants reporting a good knowledge of SH or CHCC privileged SH more than those feeling uninformed.

NH vs SH

Among respondents who did not considered Home as the most appropriate option, those living with a spouse were less likely than those living alone to choose NH for the BADL only and the BADL+UI vignettes. Participants feeling supported by their family selected NH for the BADL only vignette less frequently than those who reported no family support.

Need factors

None of the tested respondents’ need factors had significant influence on LTC preferences for any of the three vignettes in multivariate analyses once predisposing and enabling factors were controlled.

Discussion

In this population-based study of people aged between 68 and 82 years, we found that (i) incontinence as part of the disability profile, and its severity, significantly influenced the opinion expressed by older citizens regarding the place most appropriate for LTC delivery; (ii) the own characteristics of respondents such as age, gender, education level, caregiver role and knowledge of community-based services had a significant impact on LTC choices while their need characteristics, including self-reported difficulties in ADL or incontinence, did not influence opinions.
The significant influence of UI, shifting preferences towards SH and NH, is consistent with results of previous studies that reported an increased risk of admission to NH in people suffering from UI [19, 20] attributed to its physical and psychosocial consequences [21]. In case of MI, institutionalization was the most frequent choice in our population. This observation suggests that as the severity of incontinence increases, so does the risk of NH admission. However, other studies reported an absence of interaction between UI and FI on the prediction of institutionalization [22, 23]. Discrepancies may stem from methodological differences as we used multivariate analysis while other studies have applied univariate analysis [23, 24]. Moreover, the lack of distinction between UI and FI [20] and absence of consensus on the definition of FI may explain different effects of FI on institutionalization [24].
Surprisingly, personal need characteristics of older citizens, especially their own ADL disability and incontinence, had no significant impact on their opinions regarding LTC. The similarity of opinions of those without incontinence, and those with incontinence suggest that normalization, living with the condition and managing it ceases to become relevant as opposed to conjectural future incontinence. However, LTC preferences were affected by demographic and socio-economic factors. Women were more likely to choose institutionalization when the vignette presented UI. As primary caregivers at home [25], they could be more conscious of the workload imputable to the UI disability and therefore choose institutionalization more than men. UI may also have a greater impact on men’s general health [21] and functional capacities [26]. With the addition of FI to the disability profile, the difference between men and women in LTC choices receded and NH was advocated by both genders. In line with this observation, several studies have found that the association of UI and FI was not a gender-specific predictor of institutionalization [23, 27]. The citizens’ age also influenced choices. While LTC delivered at Home was still preferred in all age groups in case of UI, older respondents selected this option more often. With MI, NH was the most frequent choice irrespective of age but older people were also more likely to prefer the Home option than younger participants. However, previous studies investigating the use of LTC did not show any interaction between age and UI or FI on NH entry [9, 24]. Educational level was the third predisposing factor weighing on choices. Respondents with higher levels of education were more likely to choose SH rather than NH when the vignette presented a person with UI. They may have better knowledge of disabilities, treatments and the range of coping solutions. In a systematic review, Luppa et al. [28] reported some impact of education on LTC choice with preference for institutionalization associated to a low level of education.
Enabling factors may influence older citizens’ opinions on appropriate LTC. When the vignette showed a person with UI, respondents who were caregivers recommended Home more often than those who were not. However, Thomas [29] and Di Rosa [30] reported that incontinence was the most frequent complaint and source of stress for caregivers. Several studies revealed that between 36 and 53% of caregivers reported burden caused by UI and more for MI [24, 3133]. Moreover, many studies indicated that caregivers’ burden was a predictor of institutionalization [3436]. Severe incontinence may exceed the potential of informal care and Kauppi et al. [37] have reported that partial assistance provided for older person (i.e., covering only part of the gap to reduce but not eliminate the excessive burden) was a predictor of institutionalization. The knowledge of health services also influenced LTC choices, particularly in the case of severe incontinence. Independently of the definition of SH provided in the study questionnaire, previous knowledge regarding SH or CHCC was associated with a more frequent choice of the SH option, both when the majority of the respondents selected LTC in the community as well as when care at home was no more considered as appropriate. The amount and accessibility of information had an impact on LTC use described in another study [38]. Strain et al. [39] also reported that the reason why caregivers did not use alternatives to institutionalization was their lack of knowledge of day center, day hospital and home respite service. However, SH as an intermediate structure between home care and institutionalization has not been well investigated in the literature. Proposing different structures as an alternative to NH admissions could permit to distinguish more precisely the factors related to the choice of LTC [40].

Strengths and limitations

An important strength of our research was the use of a set of vignettes with a variable component (continence status) on a comparable base (ADL), applied to a population-based cohort of randomly selected older citizens. This allowed to assess the specific effect of incontinence on older persons opinions, as citizens, regarding appropriate LTC. Moreover, the influence of personal characteristics on citizens’ opinions could be investigated using detailed individual data. Nevertheless, the information provided to the survey participants did not specify the type of urine incontinence, while it can take several forms such as stress incontinence, urge incontinence or a combination of the both [21]. It would also be interesting to consider the frequency and intensity of incontinence [9]. However, incontinence was described in the vignette as a problem generating a need for help. As a respondent’s characteristic, UI was self-reported, and therefore may be underestimated. Its severity was not quantified and no question was asked on FI. Finally, survey participants expressed their citizen’s opinions on abstract situations. Their personal choices might be different when facing themselves the exact circumstances presented in the vignettes.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that older citizens’ opinions regarding the most appropriate LTC options are mainly influenced by their socio-structural and economic characteristics, and are largely independent of their own health. Overall, individuals characteristics do not seem to have a strong influence on citizens’ opinions. The effect of incontinence, and particularly of MI, on the acceptance of home care must be considered by policy makers. Indeed, our findings point to the necessity of considering the burden of incontinence acting as a barrier to maintain older adults in the community. Possible actions to promote further developments of LTC provision in the community may include preventive measures targeting risk factors for UI and FI along the life course, appropriate medical care of their causes and manifestations, and increased caregivers’ support, particularly in groups at risk (i.e. with lower socio-economic resources) of turning to LTC provided in an institutional setting.

Acknowledgements

We thank all participants in the Lc65+ study.
The Ethics committee for human research of the canton of Vaud approved the protocol of the Lc65+ study and informed written consent was obtained from participants. The vignette survey was approved with the 2017 annual amendment of the Lc65+ protocol (PB_2016–02506) (decision November 16, 2016).
Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Oliveira Martins J, De La Maisonneuvre C. Les déterminants des dépense publiques de santé et de soins de longue durée: une méthode de projection intégrée. Revue économique de l'OCDE. 2006;43(2):133–76.CrossRef Oliveira Martins J, De La Maisonneuvre C. Les déterminants des dépense publiques de santé et de soins de longue durée: une méthode de projection intégrée. Revue économique de l'OCDE. 2006;43(2):133–76.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat OFS: Communiqué de presse: Prise en charge médico-sociale 2016. In: Santé N°2017–0085-F. Edited by OFS. Neuchâtel; 2017. OFS: Communiqué de presse: Prise en charge médico-sociale 2016. In: Santé N°2017–0085-F. Edited by OFS. Neuchâtel; 2017.
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Füglister-Dousse S, Dutoit L, Pellegrini S. Soins de longue durée aux personnes âgées en Suisse. Evolutions 2006–2013 (Obsan Rapport 67). Neuchâtel: Observatoire suisse de la santé; 2015. Füglister-Dousse S, Dutoit L, Pellegrini S. Soins de longue durée aux personnes âgées en Suisse. Evolutions 2006–2013 (Obsan Rapport 67). Neuchâtel: Observatoire suisse de la santé; 2015.
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Dutoit L, Füglister-Dousse S, Pellegrini S. Soins de longue durée dans les cantons: un même défi, différentes solutions. Evolutions 2006–2013. (Obsan Rapport 69). Neuchâtel: Observatoire suisse de la santé; 2016. Dutoit L, Füglister-Dousse S, Pellegrini S. Soins de longue durée dans les cantons: un même défi, différentes solutions. Evolutions 2006–2013. (Obsan Rapport 69). Neuchâtel: Observatoire suisse de la santé; 2016.
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Alders P, Comijs HC, Deeg DJH. Changes in admission to long-term care institutions in the Netherlands: comparing two cohorts over the period 1996-1999 and 2006-2009. Eur J Ageing. 2017;14(2):123–31.CrossRef Alders P, Comijs HC, Deeg DJH. Changes in admission to long-term care institutions in the Netherlands: comparing two cohorts over the period 1996-1999 and 2006-2009. Eur J Ageing. 2017;14(2):123–31.CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Matsumoto M, Inoue K. Predictors of institutionalization in elderly people living at home: the impact of incontinence and commode use in rural Japan. J Cross Cult Gerontol. 2007;22(4):421–32.CrossRef Matsumoto M, Inoue K. Predictors of institutionalization in elderly people living at home: the impact of incontinence and commode use in rural Japan. J Cross Cult Gerontol. 2007;22(4):421–32.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Andersen RM. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter? J Health Soc Behav. 1995;36(1):1–10.CrossRef Andersen RM. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter? J Health Soc Behav. 1995;36(1):1–10.CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Andel R, Hyer K, Slack A. Risk factors for nursing home placement in older adults with and without dementia. J Aging Health. 2007;19(2):213–28.CrossRef Andel R, Hyer K, Slack A. Risk factors for nursing home placement in older adults with and without dementia. J Aging Health. 2007;19(2):213–28.CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Holroyd-Leduc JM, Mehta KM, Covinsky KE. Urinary incontinence and its association with death, nursing home admission, and functional decline. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(5):712–8.CrossRef Holroyd-Leduc JM, Mehta KM, Covinsky KE. Urinary incontinence and its association with death, nursing home admission, and functional decline. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(5):712–8.CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Alonso MSI, Ursua MP, Caperos JM. The family caregiver after the institutionalization of the dependent elderly relative. Educ Gerontol. 2017;43(12):650–61. Alonso MSI, Ursua MP, Caperos JM. The family caregiver after the institutionalization of the dependent elderly relative. Educ Gerontol. 2017;43(12):650–61.
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Buhr GT, Kuchibhatla M, Clipp EC. Caregivers' reasons for nursing home placement: clues for improving discussions with families prior to the transition. The Gerontologist. 2006;46(1):52–61.CrossRef Buhr GT, Kuchibhatla M, Clipp EC. Caregivers' reasons for nursing home placement: clues for improving discussions with families prior to the transition. The Gerontologist. 2006;46(1):52–61.CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat WHO. World report on ageing and health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015. WHO. World report on ageing and health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Santos-Eggimann B, Karmaniola A, Seematter-Bagnoud L, Spagnoli J, Bula C, Cornuz J, Rodondi N, Vollenweider P, Waeber G, Pecoud A. The Lausanne cohort Lc65+: a population-based prospective study of the manifestations, determinants and outcomes of frailty. BMC Geriatr. 2008;8:20.CrossRef Santos-Eggimann B, Karmaniola A, Seematter-Bagnoud L, Spagnoli J, Bula C, Cornuz J, Rodondi N, Vollenweider P, Waeber G, Pecoud A. The Lausanne cohort Lc65+: a population-based prospective study of the manifestations, determinants and outcomes of frailty. BMC Geriatr. 2008;8:20.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Santos-Eggimann B, Meylan L. Older Citizens' opinions on long-term care options: a vignette survey. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18(4):326–34.CrossRef Santos-Eggimann B, Meylan L. Older Citizens' opinions on long-term care options: a vignette survey. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18(4):326–34.CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: Self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist. 1969;9(3, Pt 1):179–86.CrossRef Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: Self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist. 1969;9(3, Pt 1):179–86.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, Jaffe MW. Studies of illness in the aged: the index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA. 1963;185(12):914–9.CrossRef Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, Jaffe MW. Studies of illness in the aged: the index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA. 1963;185(12):914–9.CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Chatterjee AS, Hadi AS. Titre Regression Analysis by Example. Volume 607 de Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Édition 4, illustrée: Wiley; 2006. p. 416. ISBN 0470055456, 9780470055458. Chatterjee AS, Hadi AS. Titre Regression Analysis by Example. Volume 607 de Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Édition 4, illustrée: Wiley; 2006. p. 416. ISBN 0470055456, 9780470055458.
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Maxwell CJ, Soo A, Hogan DB, Wodchis WP, Gilbart E, Amuah J, Eliasziw M, Hagen B, Strain LA. Predictors of nursing home placement from assisted living settings in Canada. Can J Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement. 2013;32(4):333–48.CrossRef Maxwell CJ, Soo A, Hogan DB, Wodchis WP, Gilbart E, Amuah J, Eliasziw M, Hagen B, Strain LA. Predictors of nursing home placement from assisted living settings in Canada. Can J Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement. 2013;32(4):333–48.CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Thom DH, Haan MN, Van Den Eeden SK. Medically recognized urinary incontinence and risks of hospitalization, nursing home admission and mortality. Age Ageing. 1997;26(5):367–74.CrossRef Thom DH, Haan MN, Van Den Eeden SK. Medically recognized urinary incontinence and risks of hospitalization, nursing home admission and mortality. Age Ageing. 1997;26(5):367–74.CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Abrams P, Cardozo L, Wagg A, Wein A. Incontinence 6th edition ICI-ICS. Bristol: International Continence Society edn; 2017. Abrams P, Cardozo L, Wagg A, Wein A. Incontinence 6th edition ICI-ICS. Bristol: International Continence Society edn; 2017.
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Borrayo EA, Salmon JR, Polivka L, Dunlop BD. Utilization across the continuum of long-term care services. Gerontologist. 2002;42(5):603–12.CrossRef Borrayo EA, Salmon JR, Polivka L, Dunlop BD. Utilization across the continuum of long-term care services. Gerontologist. 2002;42(5):603–12.CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Schluter PJ, Ward C, Arnold EP, Scrase R, Jamieson HA. Urinary incontinence, but not fecal incontinence, is a risk factor for admission to aged residential care of older persons in New Zealand. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(6):1588–95.CrossRef Schluter PJ, Ward C, Arnold EP, Scrase R, Jamieson HA. Urinary incontinence, but not fecal incontinence, is a risk factor for admission to aged residential care of older persons in New Zealand. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(6):1588–95.CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat AlAmeel T, Andrew MK, MacKnight C. The Association of Fecal Incontinence with Institutionalization and Mortality in older adults. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1830.CrossRef AlAmeel T, Andrew MK, MacKnight C. The Association of Fecal Incontinence with Institutionalization and Mortality in older adults. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1830.CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Yee JL, Schulz R. Gender differences in psychiatric morbidity among family caregivers: a review and analysis. Gerontologist. 2000;40(2):147–64.CrossRef Yee JL, Schulz R. Gender differences in psychiatric morbidity among family caregivers: a review and analysis. Gerontologist. 2000;40(2):147–64.CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Shamliyan TA, Wyman JF, Ping R, Wilt TJ, Kane RL. Male urinary incontinence: prevalence, risk factors, and preventive interventions. Rev Urol. 2009;11(3):145–65.PubMedPubMedCentral Shamliyan TA, Wyman JF, Ping R, Wilt TJ, Kane RL. Male urinary incontinence: prevalence, risk factors, and preventive interventions. Rev Urol. 2009;11(3):145–65.PubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Nuotio M, Jylha M, Luukkaala T, Tammela TL. Urinary incontinence in a Finnish population aged 70 and over. Prevalence of types, associated factors and self-reported treatments. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2003;21(3):182–7.CrossRef Nuotio M, Jylha M, Luukkaala T, Tammela TL. Urinary incontinence in a Finnish population aged 70 and over. Prevalence of types, associated factors and self-reported treatments. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2003;21(3):182–7.CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Luppa M, Luck T, Weyerer S, Konig HH, Brahler E, Riedel-Heller SG. Prediction of institutionalization in the elderly. A systematic review. Age Ageing. 2010;39(1):31–8.CrossRef Luppa M, Luck T, Weyerer S, Konig HH, Brahler E, Riedel-Heller SG. Prediction of institutionalization in the elderly. A systematic review. Age Ageing. 2010;39(1):31–8.CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Thomas P, Ingrand P, Lalloue F, Hazif-Thomas C, Billon R, Vieban F, Clement JP. Reasons of informal caregivers for institutionalizing dementia patients previously living at home: the pixel study. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2004;19(2):127–35.CrossRef Thomas P, Ingrand P, Lalloue F, Hazif-Thomas C, Billon R, Vieban F, Clement JP. Reasons of informal caregivers for institutionalizing dementia patients previously living at home: the pixel study. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2004;19(2):127–35.CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Di Rosa M, Lamura G. The impact of incontinence management on informal caregivers' quality of life. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2016;28(1):89–97.CrossRef Di Rosa M, Lamura G. The impact of incontinence management on informal caregivers' quality of life. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2016;28(1):89–97.CrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Cassells C, Watt E. The impact of incontinence on older spousal caregivers. J Adv Nurs. 2003;42(6):607–16.CrossRef Cassells C, Watt E. The impact of incontinence on older spousal caregivers. J Adv Nurs. 2003;42(6):607–16.CrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Flaherty JH, Miller DK, Coe RM. Impact on caregivers of supporting urinary function in noninstitutionalized, chronically ill seniors. Gerontologist. 1992;32(4):541–5.CrossRef Flaherty JH, Miller DK, Coe RM. Impact on caregivers of supporting urinary function in noninstitutionalized, chronically ill seniors. Gerontologist. 1992;32(4):541–5.CrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Noelker LS. Incontinence in elderly cared for by family. Gerontologist. 1987;27(2):194–200.CrossRef Noelker LS. Incontinence in elderly cared for by family. Gerontologist. 1987;27(2):194–200.CrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Brodaty H, McGilchrist C, Harris L, Peters KE. Time until institutionalization and death in patients with dementia: role of caregiver training and risk factors. Arch Neurol. 1993;50(6):643–50.CrossRef Brodaty H, McGilchrist C, Harris L, Peters KE. Time until institutionalization and death in patients with dementia: role of caregiver training and risk factors. Arch Neurol. 1993;50(6):643–50.CrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Toot S, Swinson T, Devine M, Challis D, Orrell M. Causes of nursing home placement for older people with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Psychogeriatr. 2017;29(2):195–208.CrossRef Toot S, Swinson T, Devine M, Challis D, Orrell M. Causes of nursing home placement for older people with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Psychogeriatr. 2017;29(2):195–208.CrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Tsuji I, Whalen S, Finucane TE. Predictors of nursing home placement in community-based long-term care. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1995;43(7):761–6.CrossRef Tsuji I, Whalen S, Finucane TE. Predictors of nursing home placement in community-based long-term care. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1995;43(7):761–6.CrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Kauppi M, Raitanen J, Stenholm S, Aaltonen M, Enroth L, Jylha M. Predictors of long-term care among nonagenarians: the vitality 90 + study with linked data of the care registers. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2017;30(8):913–19. Kauppi M, Raitanen J, Stenholm S, Aaltonen M, Enroth L, Jylha M. Predictors of long-term care among nonagenarians: the vitality 90 + study with linked data of the care registers. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2017;30(8):913–19.
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Bradley EH, McGraw SA, Curry L, Buckser A, King KL, Kasl SV, Andersen R. Expanding the Andersen model: the role of psychosocial factors in long-term care use. Health Serv Res. 2002;37(5):1221–42.CrossRef Bradley EH, McGraw SA, Curry L, Buckser A, King KL, Kasl SV, Andersen R. Expanding the Andersen model: the role of psychosocial factors in long-term care use. Health Serv Res. 2002;37(5):1221–42.CrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Strain LA, Blandford AA. Community-based Services for the Taking but few takers: reasons for nonuse. J Appl Gerontol. 2002;21(2):220–35.CrossRef Strain LA, Blandford AA. Community-based Services for the Taking but few takers: reasons for nonuse. J Appl Gerontol. 2002;21(2):220–35.CrossRef
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Fernandez-Carro C. Ageing at home, co-residence or institutionalisation? Preferred care and residential arrangements of older adults in Spain. Ageing Soc. 2016;36(3):586–612.CrossRef Fernandez-Carro C. Ageing at home, co-residence or institutionalisation? Preferred care and residential arrangements of older adults in Spain. Ageing Soc. 2016;36(3):586–612.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Impact of urine and mixed incontinence on long-term care preference: a vignette-survey study of community-dwelling older adults
verfasst von
Nicolas Carvalho
Sarah Fustinoni
Nazanin Abolhassani
Juan Manuel Blanco
Lionel Meylan
Brigitte Santos-Eggimann
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2020
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
BMC Geriatrics / Ausgabe 1/2020
Elektronische ISSN: 1471-2318
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-1439-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2020

BMC Geriatrics 1/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.