P162: Ageism among Lebanese Healthcare Workers and Students

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY International psychogeriatrics Pub Date : 2024-02-02 DOI:10.1017/s1041610223002740
Rita Khoury, Sabine Allam, Alondra Barakat, Sara Moussa
{"title":"P162: Ageism among Lebanese Healthcare Workers and Students","authors":"Rita Khoury, Sabine Allam, Alondra Barakat, Sara Moussa","doi":"10.1017/s1041610223002740","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective:Ageism, defined as stereotyping, prejudice, or discrimination against older people, is an emerging public health concern [1]. Ageist attitudes and behaviors in health care are found to negatively affect the physical and mental well-being of older individuals [2]. This study is the first to investigate ageism and its determinants in Lebanese healthcare settings.Methods:We diffused an online survey including the Fraboni Scale for Ageism (FSA) [3] and other variables to nurses, physicians, nursing, and medical students at an urban university hospital in Lebanon. We obtained online consent from participants prior to filling the survey. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of St. Georges Hospital University Medical Center (IRB-REC/O/066-21/3321).Results:We recruited 233 participants (47.2% medical students, 21.5% nurses, 20.6% physicians and 10.7% nursing students). Mean age was 29.2 (Standard Deviation—SD = 12) years. Almost two-thirds were female. Half the sample came from rural areas. Almost 60% currently live or have lived with an adult aged≥ 60 years. The FSA total score ranged between 33 and 87 (mean 58.9; SD 10.2). The mean/SD scores were 22.6 (4.5), 17.2 (3.2) and 19.1 (4.3) for the antilocution, discrimination and avoidance subscales of the FSA respectively. There was a positive correlation between age and FSA total score (p=0.041), in addition to discrimination and avoidance subscores (p=0.0001). Originating from rural areas was associated with significantly lower discrimination scores. Living or having lived with an older individual was associated with significantly lower overall ageism and discrimination scores. In addition, students (nursing and medical) were found to have lower ageist perceptions and attitudes compared to healthcare professionals (nurses and physicians). Table 1 shows the results of bivariate analyses performed. Regression analyses showed that only living or having lived with an older person remained significantly associated with lower ageism scores (p=0.036) after accounting for other covariables.Conclusions:Lower ageism was found among students compared to practicing nurses and physicians. Having lived with an older person was a protective factor against ageism. Specific anti-ageism interventions may need to be implemented to mitigate its impact in healthcare among students and practitioners.<jats:table-wrap position=\"float\"><jats:label>Table 1</jats:label><jats:caption>Bivariate analyses of FSA total score and subscores on covariates of interest</jats:caption><jats:alternatives><jats:table frame=\"hsides\"><jats:colgroup><jats:col span=\"1\" /><jats:col span=\"1\" /><jats:col span=\"1\" /><jats:col span=\"1\" /><jats:col span=\"1\" /><jats:col span=\"1\" /><jats:col span=\"1\" /><jats:col span=\"1\" /><jats:col span=\"1\" /></jats:colgroup><jats:thead><jats:tr><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">FSA total score mean (SD)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\">p-value</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\">Antilocution subscore mean (SD)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\">p-value</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\">Discrimination subscore mean (SD)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\">p-value</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\">Avoidance subscore mean (SD)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\">p-value</jats:td></jats:tr></jats:thead><jats:tbody><jats:tr><jats:td valign=\"top\">Gender</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">0.38</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">0.39</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">P=0.1</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">P=0.99</jats:td></jats:tr><jats:tr><jats:td valign=\"top\">Men (n=73)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\">57.98 (10.56)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">22.2 (5.1)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">16.67 (3.26)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">19.1 (4.36)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /></jats:tr><jats:tr><jats:td valign=\"top\">Women (n=160)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\">59.26 (10.09)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">22.76 (4.2)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">17.39 (3.03)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">19.11 (4.33)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /></jats:tr><jats:tr><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /></jats:tr><jats:tr><jats:td valign=\"top\">Origin</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">0.064</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">0.062</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">0.029</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">0.38</jats:td></jats:tr><jats:tr><jats:td valign=\"top\">Capital and suburbs (n=117)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\">60.1 (10.2)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">23.1 (4.5)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">17.6 (3.03)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">19.35 (4.38)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /></jats:tr><jats:tr><jats:td valign=\"top\">Rural Areas (n=116)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\">57.6 (10.1)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">22.04 (4.36)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">16.7 (3.15)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">18.85 (4.28)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /></jats:tr><jats:tr><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /></jats:tr><jats:tr><jats:td valign=\"top\">Residence</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">0.9</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">0.49</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">0.42</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">0.11</jats:td></jats:tr><jats:tr><jats:td valign=\"top\">Capital and suburbs (n=175)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\">58.8 (10.36)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">22.71 (4.65)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">17.26 (3.1)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">18.85 (4.27)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /></jats:tr><jats:tr><jats:td valign=\"top\">Rural Areas (n=58)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\">59 (9.9)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">22.24 (3.88)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">16.88 (3.15)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">19.88 (4.44)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /></jats:tr><jats:tr><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /></jats:tr><jats:tr><jats:td valign=\"top\">Healthcare professional group</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">0.05</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">0.2</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">0.25</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">0.017</jats:td></jats:tr><jats:tr><jats:td valign=\"top\">Students (nursing/medical) n=135</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\">57.76 (10.20)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">22.27 (4.72)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">16.96 (3.26)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">18.53 (4.15)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /></jats:tr><jats:tr><jats:td valign=\"top\">Healthcare worker (nurses/physicians) n=98</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\">60.37 (10.13)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">23.03 (4.08)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">17.44 (2.89)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">19.9 (4.46)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /></jats:tr><jats:tr><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\" /></jats:tr><jats:tr><jats:td valign=\"top\">Exposed to adults ≥ 60 years old</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">0.082</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">0.57</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">0.002</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">0.18</jats:td></jats:tr><jats:tr><jats:td valign=\"top\">No (n=98)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\">60.2 (10.9)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">22.8 (4.9)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">17.9 (3.3)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">19.5 (4.3)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /></jats:tr><jats:tr><jats:td valign=\"top\">Yes (n=135)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\">57.9 (9.6)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">22.4 (4.1)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">16.6 (2.8)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /><jats:td valign=\"top\">18.8 (4.3)</jats:td><jats:td valign=\"top\" /></jats:tr></jats:tbody></jats:table><jats:graphic xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\" mime-subtype=\"png\" mimetype=\"image\" position=\"float\" xlink:href=\"S1041610223002740_tab1.png\" /></jats:alternatives></jats:table-wrap>","PeriodicalId":14368,"journal":{"name":"International psychogeriatrics","volume":"283 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International psychogeriatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610223002740","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective:Ageism, defined as stereotyping, prejudice, or discrimination against older people, is an emerging public health concern [1]. Ageist attitudes and behaviors in health care are found to negatively affect the physical and mental well-being of older individuals [2]. This study is the first to investigate ageism and its determinants in Lebanese healthcare settings.Methods:We diffused an online survey including the Fraboni Scale for Ageism (FSA) [3] and other variables to nurses, physicians, nursing, and medical students at an urban university hospital in Lebanon. We obtained online consent from participants prior to filling the survey. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of St. Georges Hospital University Medical Center (IRB-REC/O/066-21/3321).Results:We recruited 233 participants (47.2% medical students, 21.5% nurses, 20.6% physicians and 10.7% nursing students). Mean age was 29.2 (Standard Deviation—SD = 12) years. Almost two-thirds were female. Half the sample came from rural areas. Almost 60% currently live or have lived with an adult aged≥ 60 years. The FSA total score ranged between 33 and 87 (mean 58.9; SD 10.2). The mean/SD scores were 22.6 (4.5), 17.2 (3.2) and 19.1 (4.3) for the antilocution, discrimination and avoidance subscales of the FSA respectively. There was a positive correlation between age and FSA total score (p=0.041), in addition to discrimination and avoidance subscores (p=0.0001). Originating from rural areas was associated with significantly lower discrimination scores. Living or having lived with an older individual was associated with significantly lower overall ageism and discrimination scores. In addition, students (nursing and medical) were found to have lower ageist perceptions and attitudes compared to healthcare professionals (nurses and physicians). Table 1 shows the results of bivariate analyses performed. Regression analyses showed that only living or having lived with an older person remained significantly associated with lower ageism scores (p=0.036) after accounting for other covariables.Conclusions:Lower ageism was found among students compared to practicing nurses and physicians. Having lived with an older person was a protective factor against ageism. Specific anti-ageism interventions may need to be implemented to mitigate its impact in healthcare among students and practitioners.Table 1Bivariate analyses of FSA total score and subscores on covariates of interestFSA total score mean (SD)p-valueAntilocution subscore mean (SD)p-valueDiscrimination subscore mean (SD)p-valueAvoidance subscore mean (SD)p-valueGender0.380.39P=0.1P=0.99Men (n=73)57.98 (10.56)22.2 (5.1)16.67 (3.26)19.1 (4.36)Women (n=160)59.26 (10.09)22.76 (4.2)17.39 (3.03)19.11 (4.33)Origin0.0640.0620.0290.38Capital and suburbs (n=117)60.1 (10.2)23.1 (4.5)17.6 (3.03)19.35 (4.38)Rural Areas (n=116)57.6 (10.1)22.04 (4.36)16.7 (3.15)18.85 (4.28)Residence0.90.490.420.11Capital and suburbs (n=175)58.8 (10.36)22.71 (4.65)17.26 (3.1)18.85 (4.27)Rural Areas (n=58)59 (9.9)22.24 (3.88)16.88 (3.15)19.88 (4.44)Healthcare professional group0.050.20.250.017Students (nursing/medical) n=13557.76 (10.20)22.27 (4.72)16.96 (3.26)18.53 (4.15)Healthcare worker (nurses/physicians) n=9860.37 (10.13)23.03 (4.08)17.44 (2.89)19.9 (4.46)Exposed to adults ≥ 60 years old0.0820.570.0020.18No (n=98)60.2 (10.9)22.8 (4.9)17.9 (3.3)19.5 (4.3)Yes (n=135)57.9 (9.6)22.4 (4.1)16.6 (2.8)18.8 (4.3)
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
P162:黎巴嫩医护人员和学生中的年龄歧视
目的:老龄歧视是指对老年人的成见、偏见或歧视,是一个新出现的公共卫生问题[1]。人们发现,医疗保健中的老龄歧视态度和行为会对老年人的身心健康产生负面影响[2]。方法:我们向黎巴嫩一家城市大学医院的护士、医生、护理人员和医科学生发放了一份在线调查问卷,其中包括弗拉博尼老龄歧视量表(FSA)[3]和其他变量。在填写调查问卷之前,我们征得了参与者的在线同意。结果:我们招募了 233 名参与者(医学生占 47.2%,护士占 21.5%,医生占 20.6%,护生占 10.7%)。平均年龄为 29.2 岁(标准差-SD = 12)。近三分之二为女性。半数样本来自农村地区。近 60% 的样本目前或曾经与年龄≥ 60 岁的成年人生活在一起。FSA 总分介于 33 分和 87 分之间(平均 58.9 分;标准差 10.2 分)。FSA 的抗辩、辨别和回避分量表的平均/标准分分别为 22.6 (4.5)、17.2 (3.2) 和 19.1 (4.3)。年龄与 FSA 总分呈正相关(p=0.041),与辨别和回避分量表也呈正相关(p=0.0001)。来自农村地区的人歧视得分明显较低。与年长者一起生活或曾经与年长者一起生活与明显较低的年龄歧视和歧视总分有关。此外,与医护人员(护士和医生)相比,学生(护理专业和医学专业)的年龄歧视观念和态度较低。表 1 显示了二元分析的结果。回归分析表明,在考虑了其他共变因素后,只有与老年人同住或曾经与老年人同住过才与较低的老龄歧视得分有显著关系(p=0.036)。与老年人共同生活是防止老龄歧视的保护因素。表 1B FSA 总分和分值与相关协变量的二变量分析FSA 总分平均值(标清)P-值Antilocution 分值平均值(标清)P-值Discrimination 分值平均值(标清)P-值Avoidance 分值平均值(标清)P-值性别0.380.39P=0.1P=0.99男性(n=73)57.98(10.56)22.2(5.1)16.67(3.26)19.1(4.36)女性(n=160)59.26(10.09)22.76(4.2)17.39 (3.03)19.11 (4.33)原籍0.0640.0620.0290.38首都和郊区(人数=117)60.1 (10.2)23.1 (4.5)17.6 (3.03)19.35 (4.5)17.5 (4.6)农村地区(人数=117)16.67 (3.26)19.1 (4.36)38)农村地区(n=116)57.6 (10.1)22.04 (4.36)16.7 (3.15)18.85 (4.28)Residence0.90.490.420.11 首都和郊区(n=175)58.8 (10.36)22.71 (4.65)17.26 (3.1)18.85(4.27)农村地区(n=58)59(9.9)22.24(3.88)16.88(3.15)19.88(4.44)医护专业组0.050.20.250.017学生(护理/医疗)n=13557.76(10.20)22.27(4.72)16.96(3.26)18.53(4.15)医护人员(护士/医生)n=9860.37(10.13)23.03(4.08)17.44(2.89)19.9(4.46)Exposed to adults ≥ 60 years old0.0820.570.0020.18No (n=98)60.2 (10.9)22.8 (4.9)17.9 (3.3)19.5 (4.3)Yes (n=135)57.9 (9.6)22.4 (4.1)16.6 (2.8)18.8 (4.3)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International psychogeriatrics
International psychogeriatrics 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
8.60%
发文量
217
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: A highly respected, multidisciplinary journal, International Psychogeriatrics publishes high quality original research papers in the field of psychogeriatrics. The journal aims to be the leading peer reviewed journal dealing with all aspects of the mental health of older people throughout the world. Circulated to over 1,000 members of the International Psychogeriatric Association, International Psychogeriatrics also features important editorials, provocative debates, literature reviews, book reviews and letters to the editor.
期刊最新文献
Sleep-related measurements to assess sleep disturbances among people living with dementia in nursing homes: a systematic review Measuring clinically relevant change in apathy symptoms in ADMET and ADMET 2 The effect of study partner characteristics on the reporting of neuropsychiatric symptoms across the neurocognitive spectrum The Cambodia training program on older persons' mental health and well-being: what International Psychogeriatric Association members have to offer. Unveiling hope: how social support reciprocity shields against the shadows of intimate partner violence and suicidal ideation in rural Chinese older adults
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1