Evaluation of a self‐care education program for older adults in Iran using a lifestyle improvement model

Abstract

Background Older adults and their caregivers often believe it is either too late or too difficult to make health‐focused lifestyle changes. However, this is inaccurate, as older adults can make health promotion focused lifestyle changes thereby improving their health. This study developed and evaluated a self‐care education program using Pender's Health Promotion Model and its influence on health‐focused behaviour changes among older Iranians. Method This was a quasi‐experimental study with a convenience sample of 136 community‐living older adults from Tabriz, Iran. The participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention (n = 69) or control (n = 67) group. Chi‐square test, independent t tests and Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) statistical methods were used to compare pre‐ and post‐intervention data, control and intervention groups and changes over time. The intervention was an eight‐week educational program with pre‐ and post‐intervention data collected using the Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile II (HPLP II) questionnaire. Results The mean difference and confidence limits of the older adults' health behaviours pre‐ and post‐intervention scores were 2.228 (−5.450 – 9.916) and ‐ 35.820 (−32.051 – 39.588). The covariance analysis adjusting for the baseline values showed significant differences post‐intervention (p<0.0001) in the areas of interpersonal communication, physical activity, nutrition, stress management and spiritual growth. Conclusion The health promotion education intervention illustrated that older Iranians could improve their health outcomes in several areas. Thus, culturally tailored intervention programs can be successful in challenging the opinion that older adults cannot make behaviour changes supporting their health.

Self-care interventions of community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Finally, two articles did not specify who the interventions providers were Dolovich et al ( 23 ) only refers to volunteers, and Wong et al ( 20 ) is online. The protocol was not found in 1 study ( 24 ). A summary of study characteristics can be seen in Table 3 .…”

“…One study ( 23 ) did not specify the number of sessions carried out in the intervention. Regarding care program providers, three 3 of them were from a single discipline [two from nursing ( 22 , 24 ) and one from occupational therapy ( 25 )], 3 were multidisciplinary by socio-health care providers [two combined nurses with social and community workers ( 19 , 20 ), and one was performed by a team composed by physical therapists and educators ( 26 )]. Finally, two articles did not specify who the interventions providers were Dolovich et al ( 23 ) only refers to volunteers, and Wong et al ( 20 ) is online.…”

“…All the studies adequately described the random sequence generation. Moreover, the great majority informed the Allocation concealment in the correct form, except for the Tavakkoli Oskuei et al study ( 24 ), which may have led to a selection bias. Moreover, the totality of the studies showed a “low” risk of bias for the “selective outcome reporting” criterion.…”

“…On the other hand, a great risk of bias [either "high" (18, 19, 21) or "unclear" (21,(23)(24)(25)] is obtained in the indicator of baseline characteristics similar, because the baseline characteristics of the intervention and control providers were either correctly reported or not similar. At least half of the studies presented an "unclear" or "high" risk of bias for the baseline similar outcome measurements, to the knowledge of the allocated interventions or other risk criteria.…”

“…González-González and Requena 20) is online. The protocol was not found in 1 study (24). A summary of study characteristics can be seen in Table 3.…”