Journal List > J Korean Acad Community Health Nurs > v.28(4) > 1058481

TOOLS
Sung, Park, and Park: Influences of Social Support, Self-esteem and Hope on Health Conservation of the Vulnerable Elderly with Diabetes
Original Article

J Korean Acad Community Health Nurs 2017;28(4):386-396.

Published online: 12 December 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12799/jkachn.2017.28.4.386

Influences of Social Support, Self-esteem and Hope on Health Conservation of the Vulnerable Elderly with Diabetes

Kiwol Sung1, Ji-Hyeon Park2, Mi Kyung Park3

1College of Nursing, Catholic University of Daegu, Daegu, Korea

2Department of Nursing, Catholic Sangji Colleg, Andong, Korea

3College of Nursing, Yeungnam University College, Daegu, Korea

Corresponding author: Park, Ji Hyeon Department of Nursing, Catholic Sangji College, 45 Sanggigil, Andong 36686, Korea. Tel: +82-53-650-4826, Fax: +82-53-650-4392, E-mail: angelofer@hanmail.net

Received 15 May 2017       Revised 28 August 2017       Accepted 28 October 2017

Copyright © 2017 Korean Academy of Community Health Nursing

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of social support, self - esteem, hope, and health conservation of the vulnerable elderly people with diabetes.

Methods

Participants were 100 vulnerable elderly people with diabetes living in D or K cities. Data collection was done through interviews from February to March, 2016. Social support was measured with the MOS-SSS (Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey), self-esteem with Self-Esteem Scale, hope with the Nowotny Hope Scale, and health conservation with the Sung’s Health Conservation Scale. IBM SPSS 20.0 was used to analyze descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, independent t-test, Pearson correlation, and stepwise multiple regression.

Results

Factors affecting the health conservation of the vulnerable elderly people were social support, hope, education level and subjective health status. These factors explained 64.9% of the health conservation.

Conclusion

It is necessary to construct a comprehensive nursing classification system for elderly people with diabetes in vulnerable class and to develop integrated health conservation program and nursing care as a new social support resource.

Keywords: Vulnerable populations, Social support, Self concept, Hope, Aged

References

1. Park EO, Yu M. Frailty and its related factors in vulnerable elderly population by age groups. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2016; 46(6):848–857. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2016.46.6.848.
crossref
2. Whang MJ, Lee C. Current status of national basic living security. Research Report. Seoul: The Ministry of Health and Welfare;2016. November. Report No.:11-12400-00-000868-01.
3. Jang SM. Factors of influencing subjective health status in the adults with chronic disease- focusing on socio-economic status of diabetics. Mental Health and Social Work. 2015; 43(2):32–59.
4. St. John PD, Tyas SL, Montgomery PR. Depressive symptoms and frailty. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2013; 28(6):607–614. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.3866.
5. Kim JG. Equity in health levels and health care utilization of elderly people in Korea. Social Science Research Review. 2011; 27(2):65–87.
6. Seong SC, Son MS. 2015 national health insurance statistical yearbook. Research Report. Wonju: National Health Insurance Service and Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service;2016. September. Report No:11-B550928-00001-10.
7. Conn VS, Russell CL. Self-management of chronic illnesses among aging adults. Journal of Gerontological Nursing. 2005; 31(5):4. https://doi.org/10.3928/0098-9134-20050501-03.
crossref
8. Park SY. Relationships of depression and positive emotions with hope and the mediating and moderating role of family support for people in low-income. Korean Journal of Family Social Work. 2013; 40(0):189–214.
9. Moon MY, Kim MA. Factors related to self management in middle aged and elderly with diabetes mellitus. Journal of Korean Academy of Public Health Nursing. 2005; 19(2):261–273.
10. Lee SH, Jun SS. Effects of an empowerment program on self-esteem and depression for low-income elderly women living alone. The Korean Academy of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2012; 21(4):311–320.
crossref
11. Jang SH, Kim CS, Kim MR. An effect the social support on the self-esteem and life satisfaction in elderly. Journal East-West Nursing Research. 2008; 14(2):39–46.
12. Lim MK. Relationships between social support and health among low income group in urban area [master's thesis]. [Seoul]: Seoul National University;2002. p. 86.
13. Shim MS. A study on self-esteem, social support and health promoting behavior of the low income elderly. Journal of Korean Gerontological Nursing. 2005; 7(1):63–70.
14. Kim JY, Lee JM. A Study on the factor giving effect to self-esteem of low-income old woman. Journal of Community Welfare. 2008; 27:259–280.
15. Lee JK, Lee RH. Material hardship and alcohol use among low-income households in South Korea. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association. 2016; 16(7):552–565. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2016.16.07.552.
crossref
16. Kwag KH. Relationship between latent classes of socioeconomic status and self-esteem among elderly living alone. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association. 2016; 16(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2016.16.01.001.
crossref
17. Yoe YO, Yoo EK. The relationship among depression, self-esteem and ADL in the case of the hospitalized elderly patients with chronic disease. Journal of Korean Academy of Adult Nursing. 2010; 22(6):676–686.
18. Cho HJ. The effects of hope on life stress, psychopathology and life satisfaction. The Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2010; 29(3):839–852.
19. Lee BK. A study of hope and quality of life in dialysis patients [master's thesis]. [Seoul]: Ewha Womans University;2007. p. 81.
20. Wang LY, Chang PC, Shin FJ, Sun CC, Jeng C. Self-care behavior, hope, and social support in Taiwanese patients awaiting heart transplantation. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2006; 61(4):485–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2004.11.013.
crossref
21. Ban JY, Park HR, Sohng KY. Hope and related variables in patients undergoing hemopoietic stem cell transplantation for leukemia. Asian Oncology Nursing. 2005; 5(2):116–125.
22. Sung KW. Scale development on health conservation of the institutionalized elderly. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2005; 35(1):113–124. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2005.35.1.113.
crossref
23. Oh OW, Kim EJ. Factors influencing health conservation among elders. Journal of Korean Academy of Fundamentals of Nursing. 2009; 16(2):134–143.
24. Chang HK. Influence of frailty, nutritional status, positive thinking and family function on health conservation of the elderly at home. Korean Journal of Adult Nursing. 2015; 27(1):52–62. https://doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2015.27.1.52.
crossref
25. Sherbourne CD, Stewart AL. The MOS social support survey. Social Science & Medicine. 1991; 32(6):705–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(91)90150-B.
crossref
26. Rosenberg M. Society and the adolescent self-image. 1st ed. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press;1965. p. 804.
27. Jeon BJ. Self-esteem: A test of its measurability. Yonsei Non-chong. 1974; 11(1):107–130.
28. Nowotny ML. Assessment of hope in patients with cancer: development of an instrument. Oncology Nursing Forum. 1989; 16(1):57–61.
29. Choi SS. A correlational study on spiritual wellness, hope and perceived health status of urban adults [dissertation]. [Seoul]: Yonsei University;1990. p. 81.
30. Kim CN. A correlation study on spiritual wellbeing, hope and perceived health status of the rural elderly. Journal of Korean Public Health Nursing. 2004; 18(2):342–357.

Table 1.
Differences of Health Conservation according to General and Health Characteristics (N=100)
Variables Categories n (%) or M±SD Health conservation
M±SD t or F (p) Scheffé
Gender Male 26 (26.0) 105.73±14.64 1.56 (.121)
Female 74 (74.0) 74.01±4.10 101.01±12.72
Age (year) ≤70 22 (22.0) 103.45±11.18 0.22 (.802)
71~75 37 (37.0) 101.16±13.10
≥76 41 (41.0) 102.56±14.75
Religion Buddhist Catholic 21 (21.0) 12 (12.0) 103.14±16.47 98.25±9.51 0.75 (.528)
Protestant None 34 (34.0) 33 (33.0) 101.06±15.06 104.33±10.14
Education Nonea 34 (34.0) 95.35±14.92 6.30 (.001)
Elementaryb Middle schoolc 44 (44.0) 16 (16.0) 104.16±11.40 107.75±7.90 a＜c, d
≥High schoold 6 (6.0) 112.50±12.83
Living status With married children 13 (13.0) 98.46±8.53 2.93 (.037)
With unmarried children Alone 15 (15.0) 44 (44.0) 107.13±8.74 99.05±16.06
As a couple 28 (28.0) 106.39±10.68
Marital status The couple 41 (41.0) 105.02±11.26 1.65 (.198)
Spouse death Separation/divorce 46 (46.0) 13 (13.0) 99.87±15.07 101.85±11.99
25.44±18.80
Monthly allowance (10,000 won) ≤10a 22 (22.0) 99.91±16.87 4.64 (.004)
11~20b 29 (29.0) 96.48±13.48 b＜c, d
21~30c 25 (25.0) 104.84±10.02 a＜d
≥31d 24 (24.0) 108.63±9.05
Occupation Yes 75 (75.0) 103.52±12.92 1.68 (.096)
No 25 (25.0) 98.40±14.05
Community resources (reduplication) Senior citizen center 32 (32.0)
Elderly welfare center 62 (62.0)
Religious facilities 39 (39.0)
Exercise Yes 9 (69.0) 30.29±3.96 2.72 (.009)
No 1 (31.0) 27.58±4.87
Smoking Yes 9 (9.0) 104.33±13.31 0.49 (.624)
No 1 (91.0) 102.03±13.39
Alcohol Yes 5 (15.0) 104.73±16.28 0.78 (.435)
No 5 (85.0) 101.80±12.80
Regularity of diet Very regulara 2 (62.0) 105.79±11.19 5.94 (.001) d＜a
Somewhat regularb 4 (24.0) 99.54±13.93
Somewhat irregularc 2 (12.0) 92.08±13.38
Very irregulard 2 (2.0) 85.50±27.58
Satisfaction with sleep Very poora 0 (10.0) 97.50±11.28 4.25 (.003) a, b＜c, e
Poorb 8 (38.0) 97.50±14.00
Moderatec 2 (12.0) 109.75±11.74
Goodd 8 (28.0) 103.50±12.83
Very goode 12 (12.0) 110.75±7.20
Subjective health status Very bada 12 (12.0) 91.17±13.35 5.48 (.001) a＜d, e c, b＜e
Badb 41 (41.0) 101.15±12.67
Moderatec 18 (18.0) 100.06±11.27
Healthyd 25 (25.0) 109.12±12.34
Very healthye 4 (4.0) 113.50±5.45
Table 2.
Degrees of Social Support, Hope, Self-esteem and Health Conservation (N=100)
Variables M±SD Min Max
Social support 60.72±18.98 24 94
 Emotional/informational support 3.24±1.14 1.00 5.00
 Tangible support 3.13±1.33 1.00 5.00
 Affective support 3.11±1.15 1.00 5.00
 Interaction support 3.25±1.18 1.00 5.00
Self-esteem 29.45±4.42 13 36
 Positive self-esteem 3.14±0.49 1.60 4.00
 Negative self-esteem 2.75±0.55 1.00 3.80
Hope 72.81±12.45 52 105
 Confidence in outcome 2.48±0.65 1.17 4.00
 Relationship with others 2.64±0.58 1.33 3.83
 Possibility of future 2.49±0.67 1.00 4.00
 Active involvement 2.73±0.62 1.25 4.00
 Spiritual belief 2.41±0.93 1.00 4.00
 Inner motivation 2.31±0.50 1.00 3.80
Health conservation 102.24±13.33 66 127
 Conservation of energy 2.76±0.43 1.75 3.63
 Conservation of structure integrity 2.94±0.50 1.75 3.88
 Conservation of personal integrity 2.74±0.46 1.21 3.64
 Conservation of social integrity 2.61±0.58 1.14 3.86
Table 3.
Correlations among Major Variables and Health Conservation (N=100)
Variables Social support Self-esteem Hope
r (p) r (p) r (p)
Self-esteem .24 (.014)
Hope .33 (.001) .26 (.007)
Health conservation .51 (＜.001) .19 (.051) .40 (＜.001)
Table 4.
Variables Inferencing on Health Conservation (N=100)
Variables B SE β t p
Social support 0.24 0.05 .35 5.10 ＜.001
Hope 0.22 0.07 .21 3.06 .003
Education†(3) 2.98 1.04 .19 2.87 .005
Subjective health status‡(4) 2.26 0.97 .19 2.34 .022
R2=.65, Adjusted R2=.622, F=8.26, p=.005

† Dummy variables (Education: None=0, Elementary=1, Middle school=2, High school or more=3);

‡ Dummy variables (Subjective health status: Very bad=0, Bad=1, Moderate=2, Healthy=3, Very healthy=4).

TOOLS
Similar articles