Time perspective is crucial for our present and future plans, and for the way we act in the present. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between time perspective and subjective well-being in older adults. The sample of our questionnaire study consisted of 149 older adults aged between 65 and 96 years. Time perspective was measured with the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. The five time perspective dimensions were related to four specific aspects of subjective well-being (positive affect, negative affect, life satisfaction and depression). Future-oriented older persons had a more positive affect. Older adults who were positively oriented towards the past appeared to be more satisfied with life. A hedonistic view of the present was related to a high positive affect. Older persons with a Past-Negative perspective were more likely to experience negative affect and depressive feelings, along with a lower level of positive affect and satisfaction with life. The Present-Fatalistic time perspective correlated with more depressive symptoms. The findings emphasize the relevance of time perspective styles for the subjective well-being, which has specific implications for the way caregivers could interact with older adults to enhance quality of life.

BackgroundIn order to address the challenges of an ageing population the Belgian government decided to allocate resources to the creation of geriatric day hospitals (GDHs). Although GDHs are meant to be a strategy to support general practitioners (GPs) caring for the frail elderly, few Belgian GPs seem to refer to a GDH. This study aims to explore the barriers and facilitating factors of GPs' referral to GDHs.MethodsA qualitative study using focus group discussions (FGDs) was conducted. Fifteen FGDs were organized in the different Belgian regions (Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels).ResultsContextual factors such as the unsatisfactory cooperation between hospital and GPs and organizational barriers such as the lack of communication on referral procedures between hospital and primary health care (PHC) were identified. Lack of basic knowledge about the concept or the local organization of GDH seemed to be a problem. Unclear task descriptions, responsibilities and activities of a GDH formed prominent points of discussion in all FGDs. Nevertheless a lot of possible advantages and disadvantages of GDHs for the patient and for the GP were mentioned.ConclusionsIn the case of poor referral to GDHs, focusing on improving overall collaboration between primary and secondary health care is essential. This can be achieved by actively delivering adequate information, permanent communication and more involvement of PHC in the organization and functioning of GDHs. The absence of a transparent health care system with delineated role definitions, seems to hinder the integration of new initiatives like GDHs in the care process. Strategies to enhance referral to GDHs should use a comprehensive approach.