Preserving Dignity in Later Life

The assessment of health system responsiveness from the viewpoints of COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

Pandemics such as Corona are currently major health concerns worldwide. Health system responsiveness to the medical and non-medical needs of patients during pandemics is essential. This study aimed to examine hospitals' responsiveness to Corona patients.

METHODS

This descriptive and analytical research had a cross-sectional design. The study population included Corona patients discharged from 17 public hospitals of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Iran, in the spring of 2021. WHO questionnaire for health system responsiveness was used to collect data. 413 patients participated in the study who were selected by random classified sampling. To analyze the data, descriptive statistics, including frequency, and deviation, and to examine the relationship between variables, Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used.

RESULTS

In this study, one-third participants were in the age range of 31 to 40 (32.6%). The ability of 277 (70.5%) participants to pay treatment costs was very low, and low. 380 (96.7%) of the respondents had basic health insurance and 101 (25.7%) had supplementary insurance. In general, respondents evaluated the responsiveness of hospitals as 75.6. The highest score was related to confidentiality, and the lowest to prompt attention. There was no significant relationship between the total response score with demographic information.

CONCLUSION

The responsiveness of studied hospitals to Corona patients was adequate. However, there was dissatisfaction with the lack of timely treatment and medication. Moreover, the most important dimension of responsiveness was dignity. Healthcare providers need to pay attention to different aspects of responsiveness and improving the quality of and access to health services during pandemics and disasters.

Social dignity for marginalized people in public healthcare: an interpretive review and building blocks for a non-ideal theory

Jacobson (Social Science & Medicine 64:292-302, 2007) finds two distinct meanings of "dignity" in the literature on dignity and health: (1) intrinsic human dignity and (2) social dignity constituted through interactions with caregivers. Especially the latter has been central in empirical health research and warrants further exploration. This article focuses on the social dignity of people marginalized by mental illness, substance abuse and comparable conditions in extramural settings. 35 studies published between 2007 and 2017 have addressed this issue, most of them identifying norms for social dignity: civilized interactions, non-stigmatizing treatment, treatment as unique individuals, being taken seriously, maintaining a positive identity, experiencing independence, relating to others, and participating in daily life. We argue that these norms belong to ideal theory, whereas we agree with Robeyns (Social Theory and Practice 34:341-362, 2008) and others that improving practice is better served by non-ideal theory. Towards this end, we derive from the literature four building blocks for a non-ideal theory of dignity: (1) avoid violations of dignity rather than seeking to promote it; (2) dignity is not a goal to be reached; it requires ongoing effort; (3) promoting dignity is a balancing act; contradictory norms can make it impossible to realize; and (4) dignity can be undermined by organizational and discursive constraints.

Improving Dignity of Care in Community-Dwelling Elderly Patients with Cognitive Decline and Their Caregivers. The Role of Dignity Therapy

Demographic changes have placed age-related mental health disorders at the forefront of public health challenges over the next three decades worldwide. Within the context of cognitive impairment and neurocognitive disorders among elderly people, the fragmentation of the self is associated with existential suffering, loss of meaning and dignity for the patient, as well as with a significant burden for the caregiver. Psychosocial interventions are part of a person-centered approach to cognitive impairment (including early stage dementia and dementia). Dignity therapy (DT) is a therapeutic intervention that has been shown to be effective in reducing existential distress, mood, and anxiety symptoms and improving dignity in persons with cancer and other terminal conditions in palliative care settings. The aims of this paper were: (i) To briefly summarize key issues and challenges related to care in gerontology considering specifically frail elderly/elderly with cognitive decline and their caregivers; and (ii) to provide a narrative review of the recent knowledge and evidence on DT in the elderly population with cognitive impairment. We searched the electronic data base (CINAHL, SCOPUS, PSycInfo, and PubMed studies) for studies regarding the application of DT in the elderly. Additionally, given the caregiver’s role as a custodian of diachronic unity of the cared-for and the need to help caregivers to cope with their own existential distress and anticipatory grief, we also propose a DT-dyadic approach addressing the needs of the family as a whole.

A critique of the Active Ageing Index

Active ageing and successful ageing are ubiquitous concepts in contemporary societies. In the European Union, active ageing is monitored and promoted chiefly by the Active Ageing Index, a policy tool in use since 2012. We acknowledge that the AAI may contribute to sensitizing people, including policymakers, to the multidimensionality and complexity of the process of "ageing well". However, we note that despite being widely used and promoted, the Active Ageing Index remains under-scrutinized. In this article, we undertake a comprehensive critical analysis of the Active Ageing Index. This critical analysis is supported by the Theory of Model Ageing, the Capability Approach and, to a lesser extent, by relevant literature on composite indices. We conclude that the Active Ageing Index was developed with the paradoxical aim of deriving "the solution" from "the problem". It is an under-theorized and narrowly conceptualized index that contributes to the process of Model Ageing, as its conceptual foundation, and its domains and indicators, convey a certain model of active ageing. This model is expert-based and ingrained with a priori assumptions about the potential of older people, the domains of life and activities they value and how strongly they value them. Finally, the Active Ageing Index measures current achievements, not capabilities (i.e. the opportunity set of achievable "doings" and "beings"), resulting in a valuable but incomplete tool for policymaking purposes. We hope that this critical analysis will initiate a debate on the Active Ageing Index that, in our view, is overdue.