ArticleBrain sciences2024
Lifestyle and Environment Influence the Psychological Well-Being of Elderly Subjects in Italy.
Article in Brain sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveAging is associated with both cognitive and physical decline. Some factors, such as lifestyle and environment, can significantly contribute to accelerating or slowing down the decline processes. Our study aimed to evaluate the impact of lifestyle (active vs. non-active) and environmental context (institutionalized vs. non-institutionalized) on the cognitive functioning, psychological well-being, sleep quality, and daily living skills of elderly people.
methodsOur sample consisted of 182 subjects divided into active and non-active groups (subjects who engage or not in physical and social activities, respectively; mean age in years: 67.19 vs. 68.75) and 245 subjects divided into institutionalized and non-institutionalized groups (i.e., living in a nursing home or not, respectively; mean age in years: 79.49 vs. 71.72). Participants were enrolled voluntarily and randomly in the city of L'Aquila. A battery of psychological instruments was administered to evaluate general cognitive decline, depressive symptoms, self-assessed sleep quality, and daily living skills.
resultsRegarding lifestyle, the active group exhibited significantly lower levels of depression, better sleep quality, and daily living skills with respect to the non-active group. Regarding environmental context, institutionalized subjects showed higher levels of depression and reduced cognitive functioning, which were linked to reduced sleep quality and worsened daily living skills. When comparing the non-active with the institutionalized group, the latter showed higher levels of depression and reduced cognitive functioning, more sleep complaints, and reduced daily living skills.
conclusionsOur study highlights that an active lifestyle and a non-institutionalized environment, both allowing greater mobility and autonomy, are two factors that positively contribute to the mental and physical well-being of elderly individuals. Furthermore, the healthcare institution context appears to have a greater negative impact on the psycho-physical well-being of the subjects involved compared to a non-active lifestyle.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.