Advertisement

Aging Clinical and Experimental Research

, Volume 21, Issue 4–5, pp 329–337 | Cite as

Sooner or later? A study of institutionalization in late life

  • Marie Ernsth Bravell
  • Stig Berg
  • Bo Malmberg
  • Gerdt Sundström
Original Article

Abstract

Background and aims: Existing information about institutionalization of elderly individuals is mainly based on cross-sectional data and does not address the cumulative risk of institutionalization. The purpose of the present study was to analyze longitudinal data prospectively and estimate the risk of placement in an elder care institution for individuals aged 70 years or older. Methods: The study was based on a longitudinal investigation (the H70 study) of a random sample of 70-year-olds living in Gothenburg, Sweden, in 1971. Individuals were followed from age 70–100 years. Three different analyses were performed: a descriptive prospective analysis, cross-sectional analyses at ages 70, 79 and 85 years, and a longitudinal analysis of predictors for institutionalization. Results: The prospective analysis indicated that 50% of the individuals eventually moved to an elder care institution. Significantly more women than men were institutionalized, although for women the move occurred later in life. Cross-sectional analyses demonstrated that various factors were important to institutionalization at different ages. The Cox regression model with time-varying covariates indicated that gender, socio-economic situation, marital status, number of symptoms, having children living nearby, and activities in daily life were related to institutionalization. Conclusions: The proportion of elderly persons relocating to institutions was significantly higher than that generally found in cross-sectional studies. It was possible to identify variables that predict institutionalization during a subsequent 30-year period, but different analyses revealed different effects from the factors evaluated.

Keywords

ADL health institutionalization social network 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    National Board of Health and Welfare. Äldre — vård och omsorg år 2005. [The elderly — Medical and Social Care in 2005] Official Swedish statistics. National Board of Welfare, Stockholm, 2006.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Girolami G, Tempestini A, Cavrini G et al. Residential facilities for older people in Italy: a five-region survey. Aging Clin Exp Res 2007; 19: 132–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sundström G. Commentary. Ageing is riskier than it looks. Age Ageing 1995; 24: 373–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sundström G, Malmberg B, Romören TI, Samuelsson G. Innan döden skiljer oss åt. Jämställda omsorginsatser vid livets slut [Before death do us part. Equal caregiving at the end of life]. Aldring og livslop 2003; 1: 24–9.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kastenbaum R, Candy SE. The 4 % fallacy: A methodological and empirical critique of extended care facility population statistics. Int J Aging Hum Dev 1973; 4: 15–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Andersson E-B, Sundström G, Thulin A. Det sista levnadsåret. En undersökning av omsorg och vård för mycket gamla personer som avled i Jönköpings sjukvårdsområde 1999. En förstudie. [The last year of life. A study of services and health care for very old individuals dying in the county council of Jönköping in 1999. A pilot study.] Institute of Gerontology, Jönköping, 2003.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Andersson M, Hallberg IR, Edberg A-K. Health care consumption and place of death among old people with public home care or in special accommodation in their last year of life. Aging Clin Exp Res 2007; 19: 228–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kemper P, Murtaugh CM. Lifetime use of nursing home care. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 595–600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greene VL, Ondrich JI. Risk factors for nursing home admissions and exits: a discrete-time hazard function approach. J Gerontol Soc Sci 1990; 45: 250–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wolinsky FC, Callahan CM, Fitzgerald JF, Johnsson RJ. The risk of nursing home placement and subsequent death among older adults. J Gerontol Soc Sci 1992; 47: 173–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Montgomery RJV, Kosloski K. A longitudinal analysis of nursing home placement for dependent elders cared for by spouses vs adult children. J Gerontol Soc Sci 1994; 49: 62–74.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Samuelsson G, Sundström G. Ending one’s life in a nursing home: a note on Swedish findings. Int J Aging Hum Dev 1988; 27: 81–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hays JC, Pieper CF, Purser JL. Competing risk of household expansion or institutionalization in late life. J Gerontol Soc Sci 2003; 1: 511–20.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Board of Health and Welfare. Äldre som flyttar till service och vård. Uppföljning av situationen i Sundsvall 2005. [Elderly who move into special types of housing for service and care. Evaluation of the situation in Sundsvall, 2005.] National Board of Welfare, Stockholm, 2005.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roe B, Whattam M, Young H, Dimond M. Elders’ needs and experiences of receiving formal and informal care for their activities of daily living. J Clin Nurs 2001; 10: 389–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Slivinske LR, Fitch VL, Wingerson NW. The effect of functional disability on service utilization. Health Soc Work 1998; 23: 175–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gaugler JE, Kane RL, Kane RA, Clay T, Newcomer RC. The effects of duration of caregiving on institutionalization. Gerontologist 2005; 45: 78–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Finlayson M. Changes predicting long-term care use among the oldest old. Gerontologist 2002; 42: 443–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen P-C, Wilmoth JM. The effects of residential mobility on ADL and IADL limitations among the very old living in the community. J Gerontol Soc Sci 2004; 59B: 164–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Houtven C, van Norton H, Edward C. Informal care and health care use of older adults. J Health Econ 2004; 23: 1159–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mack R, Salmoni A, Viverais-Dressler G, Porter E, Garg R. Perceived risks to independent living: the views of older community-dwelling adults. Gerontologist 1997; 7: 729–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cribier F, Kych A. Parcours résidentiels de fin de vie d’une cohorte de retraités de la région parisienne.[Residential trajectories at end of life in a cohort of retired Parisians] Paris: CNRS, Rapport de recherche 1999, Mimeo.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hays JC. Living arrangements and health status in later life: a review of recent literature. Public Health Nurs 2002; 19: 136–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Larsson K, Thorslund M. Does gender matter? Differences in patterns of informal support and formal services in a Swedish urban elderly population. Res Aging 2002; 24: 308–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rinder L, Roupe S, Steen B. Svanborg A. Seventy-year-old people in Gothenburg. A population study in an industrialized Swedish city. I. General presentation of the study. Acta Med Scand 1975; 198: 397–407.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Svanborg A, Rinder L, Roupe S, Steen B. Seventy-year-old people in Gothenburg. A population study in an industrialized Swedish city. II. General presentation of social and medical conditions. Acta Med Scand Suppl 1977; 611: 3–37.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hultén A, Kerstell J, Olsson R, Svanborg A. A method to calculate nursing load. Scand J Rehab Med 1969; 1: 117–25.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Romören TI. Den fjerde alderen. [The fourth age] Oslo: Gyldendal Akadmisk, Norway, 2001.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Statistics Sweden. Livslängd, hälsa och sysselsättning. Utvecklingen för kohorter födda 1930, 1935, 1940, 1945, 1950 och 1955. [Development of cohorts born in 1930, 1935, 1940, 1945, 1950 and 1955.] Demografisk rapport 2002:3. Statistiska Centralbyrån; Stockholm, 2002.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jakobsson U, Hallberg IR. Loneliness, fear, and quality of life among elderly in Sweden: a gender perspective. Aging Clin Exp Res 2005; 17: 494–501.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mendes de Leon CF, Glass TA, Beckett LA, Seeman TE, Evans DA, Berkman LF. Social networks and disability transitions across eight intervals of yearly data in the New Haven EPESE. J Gerontol Soc Sci 1999; 54B: 162–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Avlund K, Lund R, Holstein B, Due P, Sakari-Rantali R, Heikkinen R-L. The impact on structural and functional characteristics of social relations as determinants of functional decline. J Gerontol Soc Sci 2004; 59B: 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gosman-Hedström G, Claesson L. Gender perspective on informal care for elderly people one year after acute stroke. Aging Clin Exp Res 2005; 17: 479–485.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hellström Y, Hallberg IR. Perspective of elderly people receiving home help on health, care and quality of life. Health Soc Care Community 2001; 9: 61–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Davey A, Johansson L, Malmberg B, Sundström G. Unequal but equitable: an analysis of variations in old-age care in Sweden. Eur J Ageing 2006; 3: 34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lesnoff-Caravaglia G. The five per cent fallacy. Int J Aging Hum Dev 1978; 9: 187–192.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    National Board of Health and Welfare. The “Ädel Reform” final report 1996. National Board of Health and Welfare 1996, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Internal Publishing Switzerland 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie Ernsth Bravell
    • 1
  • Stig Berg
    • 1
  • Bo Malmberg
    • 1
  • Gerdt Sundström
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Gerontology, School of Health SciencesJönköping UniversityJönköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations