Assessing the quality of life priorities in the elderly: Application of the Turkish-Adapted Mayers’ Lifestyle Questionnaire (3)

Abstract

Introduction:

The growing aging population requires the development of new policies and programs to meet the needs and expectations of the elderly. Identifying priorities for the elderly’s quality of life can be the foundation for rehabilitation services provided to the elderly. This study aims to assess the quality of life priorities in the elderly using the Turkish-adapted Mayers’ Lifestyle Questionnaire (3).

Method:

The study included 171 elderly with a mean age of 74.72 ± 4.36 years. Participants completed a sociodemographic information form and the Turkish-Adapted Mayers’ Lifestyle Questionnaire (3).

Results:

Quality of life priorities for elderly people were independence in reading and writing, participation in paid and/or voluntary work, spiritual, and satisfying activities, and the ability to make choices about their lives.

Conclusion:

The study results showed that Mayers’ Lifestyle Questionnaire (3) supports setting priorities by examining the quality of life of elderly people from a multidimensional perspective. The use of Mayers’ Lifestyle Questionnaire (3) can contribute to the development of effective strategies aimed at improving the quality of life for elderly individuals. A holistic approach to each factor affecting quality of life will enable occupational therapists and other professionals involved with elderly people to consider person-centered factors in their interventions.

Keywords

Aging elderly quality of life

Introduction

The distribution of the elderly in the total population is increasing as a result of the rise in average life expectancy and the decline in fertility rates (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2019). The world’s elderly population is estimated to double by 2050 (Gutterman, 2023). In Turkey, 9.7% of the current population consists of elderly people, and this rate is expected to reach 25% in 30 years (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2021). The increase in the elderly population is a global public health problem that brings with it a number of health and social problems (Medhi et al., 2019). Many physical, mental, and social changes occur in the elderly that reduce functional capacity and cause disability (Pashmdarfard and Azad, 2020; World Health Organization, 2020). Elderly people become dependent on daily living activities and their quality of life decreases (Tas et al., 2007). For this reason, quality of life, which is an important component in the healthy aging process of the elderly, needs to be examined in detail, especially in countries like Turkey, where the elderly population is increasing (Çam et al., 2021; Pashmdarfard and Azad, 2020).

The definition of quality of life, which is a subjective and complex concept, has changed and developed over time. In the beginning, quality of life was only associated with health-related factors such as adequate nutrition, access to health services, and physical condition (Ghosh and Dinda, 2020). However, over time, the quality of life has expanded to include social, emotional, spiritual, and cultural dimensions in addition to physical and mental health (Bircher, 2005). The World Health Organization defines the quality of life as “the perception of an individual’s position in life to their goals, expectations, standards, and concerns, within the context of their culture and value systems” (World Health Organization, 1998). Within the context of this definition, quality of life is not just about independence in daily living activities; it also includes health perception, roles and activities, relationships, spirituality, home and neighborhood, and financial security parameters (Van Leeuwen et al., 2019). Sociodemographic studies have shown that quality of life changes with age, and a multidimensional assessment of quality of life with an accurate and specific approach has been proposed to improve the quality of life of the elderly (Pashmdarfard and Azad, 2020).

Quality of life assessments are used to identify the elderly at risk and to set goals to improve their quality of life, as elderly individuals have become crucial for public health in the community (Burks et al., 2021; Çam et al., 2021). In the literature, various assessments with different concepts, structures, and content are used to measure the quality of life of the elderly (Nikkah et al., 2018). Although many quality of life assessments have been validated in Turkish, only a few specialize in the elderly population (Eser et al., 2010). The Older People’s Quality of Life Questionnaire (OPQOL-brief), the Older People’s Quality of Life Questionnaire (CASP-19), and the World Health Organization Quality of Life—OLD (WHOQOL-OLD) are the most commonly used general quality of life assessments developed specifically for the elderly and validated in Turkish (Caliskan et al., 2019; Eser et al., 2010; Türkoğlu and Adıbelli, 2014). These quality of life assessments evaluate general life, health, social relations, participation, life control, environment, and psychological status but they are not activity- and person-centered assessments of the quality of life. Also, although these assessments provide an objective result in measuring the quality of life of elderly individuals, they do not meet the need to determine priorities for their quality of life individually. There is a need for culturally adapted assessments that include objective and subjective indicators to determine priorities for the quality of life of elderly individuals (Malkina and Pykh, 2008). In addition, since quality of life varies across cultures, there is a need for culturally appropriate assessments that prioritize quality of life in countries with an increasing elderly population, especially in Turkey (Bilgili and Arpacı, 2014).

Determining the quality of life priorities of the elderly is of great importance for occupational therapists who apply activity and person-centered interventions to improve the quality of life of the elderly (Reitz and Scaffa, 2020; Toledano-González et al., 2019). An occupational therapist is interested in how a client’s problems affect their quality of life and how they can improve this quality of life based on the client’s views (Mayers, 1998). Mayers (1998) developed Mayers’ Lifestyle Questionnaire (3) [(MLSQ (3)] for occupational therapists to conduct good case management and provide needs-based assessments of the elderly. This questionnaire assesses the priorities of the elderly for their quality of life in a person-centered and activity-oriented (Mayers, 2003). According to Mayers, quality of life is composed of the individual’s subjective well-being, physical and mental health, financial well-being, family and external relationships, activities in the community, spiritual satisfaction, beliefs, and values (Mayers, 2000). The MLSQ (3) examines the quality of life of elderly people in a wide range of domains, from mobility to spirituality. It also helps occupational therapists identify their clients’ problems and establish their priorities. Before the intervention, it allows clients to identify their prioritized needs according to their quality of life. The questionnaire consists of nine basic sub-dimensions: looking after yourself, living situation, looking after others, being with others, paid work/voluntary work/study, your beliefs and values, finances, choices, and activities you enjoy doing.

Study aims

Determining quality of life priorities for elderly individuals is a key role in creating person-centered plans due to increasing public health problems in countries with growing elderly populations. Although there are many studies evaluating the quality of life of the elderly in the literature, studies using assessments that determine “priorities for quality of life” specific to the elderly in Turkish culture and determining priorities are limited. The MLSQ (3) could enable the identification of priorities for the quality of life of the elderly. This study aimed to determine assessing quality of life priorities in the elderly using the Turkish-adapted MLSQ (3).

Method

Procedure

The study was approved by the Hacettepe University Non-Interventional Ethics Committee on May 5, 2020, with the project number GO 20/140, and the study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Researchers conducted face-to-face interviews with the elderly who met the inclusion criteria and agreed to participate in the study. All participants completed a sociodemographic information form and MLSQ (3).

Participants

The population of the study was elderly individuals over the age of 65. The sample size was determined as 171 individuals based on the G-Power program with (1 − β) = 0.90 and α = 0.05. The sample group was reached by the convenience sampling method. The inclusion criteria were being 65 years of age or older and being able to communicate verbally, as specified by Mayers (1998). Exclusion criteria were having a neurological or mental health problem that could interfere with cooperation and understanding. A total of 192 people who agreed to participate in the research were evaluated. After the purpose and method were explained in detail, the informed consent form was signed by the individuals who agreed to participate in the study. A total of 21 individuals, including those who withdrew from the study (n = 12) and those who left questions blank (n = 9), were excluded from the study, leaving a total of 171 individuals in the study sample. The researchers conducted face-to-face interviews with the participants and each interview lasted an average of 30 min.

Translation and cultural adaptation of the MLSQ (3)

Beaton’s 6-step procedure was followed, adapting the MLSQ (3) to Turkish (Beaton et al., 2000). The forward translation of the original English MLSQ (3) into Turkish was translated by two independent individuals who are native speakers of Turkish and fluent in English. The discrepancies between the two translations were reviewed, and a consensus on the Turkish version was established. Subsequently, the initial Turkish draft underwent back-translation into English by two proficient individuals who are native English speakers fluent in Turkish. Discrepancies between the forward-translated and back-translated MLSQ (3) were deliberated upon by an expert panel, leading to the Turkish version of the MLSQ (3) before its final version. Throughout the translation and expert panel phases, common phrases containing auxiliary verbs (such as “Are you able to” and “Do you”) that do not align with Turkish grammatical structure were rephrased to incorporate the main verb in the items to enhance comprehensibility. In addition, to preserve semantic coherence, items originally expressed in simple present tense in English were converted to present continuous tense verbs in Turkish. Following semantic and grammatical revisions, the pre-final version of the MLSQ (3) underwent pilot testing with 10 participants to ensure cultural adaptation.

Various changes were made in the cultural adaptation for clarity and cultural appropriateness. In the Looking After Yourself sub-heading, “to your satisfaction” was changed to mean “in a satisfying way” for clarity, as there is no exact equivalent in Turkish. “Manage stairs” was changed to use two different verbs (in and out). Since “gardening” can be directly understood as “gardener” in Turkish, this activity was semantically supported by “garden works.” For cultural appropriateness, “sheltered housing” in the Living Situation subheading was replaced with “nursing homes,” which is a common place for the elderly in Turkey, as “sheltered housing” is not available in Turkey. Town/village has been changed to city/village, as this is often the same term, and the elderly in Turkey mostly live in cities. In the Paid Work/Voluntary Work/Study subheading, since there are no “adult classes/University of 3rd Age/Open University” in Turkey, this was changed to “University/Open Education University” (an open education university is a form of university preferred by many adults or young people, including the elderly). As a result of these cultural adaptations, the final Turkish version of the MLSQ (3) was created.

Measures

Demographic Information Form: A form created by researchers to collect information about age, gender, marital status, educational status, economic status, number of children, and chronic diseases. The form consists of a total of 11 questions.

MLSQ (3): The MLSQ (3) was used to determine the priorities of the elderly for their quality of life. The MLSQ (3) consists of 51 items under 9 subheadings (Mayers, 2003). The subheadings are Looking After Yourself (15), Living Situation (7), Looking After Others (2), Being with Others (5), Paid Work/Voluntary Work/Study (5), Your Beliefs and Values (3), Finances (4), Choices (5), and Activities You Enjoy Doing (5) (Weber and Pott, 2011). The items are evaluated differently for each subheading: Looking After Yourself is evaluated as “Independent-With Difficulty-With Extreme Difficulty,” Living Situation, Looking After Others, Paid Work/Voluntary Work/Study, Your Beliefs and Values, and Finances are evaluated as “Yes-No”; the Being with Others headings are evaluated as “Yes-Occasionally-No.” Activities You Enjoy Doing is based on semi-structured interviews. Participants indicate up to five activities they like to do during the day and score them between “Independent-With Difficulty-With Extreme Difficulty.”

Statistical analysis

The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 26.00 for Windows software. Descriptive statistics were performed using mean, standard deviation, frequency, and percentage to indicate numerical and categorical data.

Results

The study included 171 elderly people with a mean age of 74.72 ± 4.36 years. Demographic information of the participants is given in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographics.

Variable	n	%
Age (years)
65–69	79	46.2
70–79	57	33.3
80+	35	20.5
Gender
Female	89	52.0
Male	82	48.0
Marital status
Married	111	64.9
Single	60	35.1
Education
Elementary	91	53.2
Secondary	33	19.3
High school	28	16.4
University	19	11.1
Number of children
1–2	62	36.3
3–4	75	43.9
5+	34	19.9
Income status
Low	43	25.1
Middle	113	66.1
High	15	8.8
Chronic disease
Yes	115	67.3
No	56	32.7
Psychological disease
Yes	11	6.4
No	160	93.6
Total	171	100

“Looking After Yourself” and “Activities You Enjoy Doing” were categorized according to the degree of independence. Participants were mostly able to get up independently at the appropriate time in the morning (78.9%) but had difficulty cleaning their homes (53.8%). They also had extreme difficulty with writing (24.6%), reading (22.2%), and gardening (22.2%). In addition, the five most frequently mentioned activities that the participants enjoyed were watching TV, praying and other spiritual activities, gardening, using the telephone, and knitting (Table 2).

Table 2.

Participants’ level of independence in activities.

Items	Independently	With difficulty	With extreme difficulty
	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Looking after yourself
Get up in the morning at an appropriate time	135 (78.9)	33 (19.3)	3 (1.8)
Sleep adequately	122 (71.3)	32 (18.8)	17 (9.9)
Maintain personal hygiene to your satisfaction	128 (74.9)	32 (18.7)	11 (6.4)
Wash your clothes	91 (53.2)	51 (31.6)	26 (15.2)
Shop for food	106 (62.0)	40 (23.4)	25 (14.6)
Prepare and cook food	93 (54.4)	51 (29.8)	27 (15.8)
Manage your health needs, including medication	97 (56.7)	40 (23.4)	34 (19.9)
Heat your house adequately	130 (76.0)	18 (10.5)	23 (13.5)
Clean your house to your satisfaction	79 (46.2)	58 (33.9)	34 (19.9)
Do your gardening to your satisfaction	90 (52.6)	43 (25.2)	38 (22.2)
Use a telephone	106 (62.0)	38 (22.2)	27 (15.8)
Read what you want/need to read	93 (54.4)	40 (23.4)	38 (22.2)
Write what you want/need to write	92 (53.8)	37 (21.6)	42 (24.6)
Manage stairs	80 (46.8)	69 (40.4)	22 (12.8)
Get out into the garden	106 (62.0)	44 (25.7)	21 (12.3)
Activities you enjoy doing:
Watch TV (n = 123)	112 (91.0)	8 (6.5)	3 (2.5)
Pray and other spiritual activities (n = 86)	56 (65.1)	20 (23.2)	10 (11.7)
Gardening (n = 74)	12 (16.2)	46 (62.2)	16 (21.6)
Use a telephone (n = 56)	23 (41.9)	18 ( 32.4)	15 (26.8)
Knitting (n = 48)	12 (25.0)	28 (58.3)	8 (16.7)

Questions on living situation, finances and work education, beliefs and values, and looking after others were categorized as Yes/No. Among these items, it was found that participants’ beliefs and spirituality were important (99.9%) and that they liked to be with people with similar beliefs and values (94.7%). In addition, the majority of the participants (93.0%) were not in paid employment but were willing to volunteer or work in paid employment (74.2%; Table 3).

Table 3.

Findings of participants’ living situation, looking after others, work-education, beliefs and values, and finances.

Items	Yes	No
	n (%)	n (%)
Living situation
Like where you live (your house/flat/sheltered housing)	152 (88.9)	19 (11.1)
Have the level of privacy that you would like	154 (90.1)	17 (9.9)
Feel safe in your home	153 (89.5)	18 (10.5)
Feel safe within the town/village in which you live	148 (86.5)	23 (13.5)
Walk/use mobility aid outside	160 (93.5)	11 (6.5)
Drive a car if you are a car driver	23 (13.4)	148 (86.6)
Use public transport alone	109 (63.7)	62 (36.3)
Looking after other
If you have responsibility for another person, is there any way in which you need help	112 (65.5)	59 (34.5)
If you have a pet, is there any way in which you need help	109 (63.7)	62 (36.3)
Paid Work/Voluntary Work/Education
Are you still in paid employment	12 (7.0)	159 (93.0)
Do you do any voluntary work	27 (15.8)	144 (84.2)
Would you like to undertake voluntary/paid work	127 (74.2)	44 (25.8)
Are you studying (e.g., adult classes/University of 3rd Age)	1 (0.5)	170 (95.5)
Your beliefs and values
Do you have religious/spiritual beliefs that are important to you	169 (99.9)	2 (0.1)
Do you like to be with others who have similar beliefs/values	162 (94.7)	9 (5.3)
Are you able to join others with similar beliefs	41 (23.9)	130 (76.1)
Finances
Receive benefits	158 (92.3)	13 (7.7)
Have adequate money for your needs	165 (96.4)	6 (3.6)
Have difficulty budgeting/managing your money	15 (8.8)	156 (91.2)
Have difficulty collecting pension or benefits	19 (17.0)	142 (83.0)

“Being with others” and “Choices” were categorized according to Yes/Sometimes/No. “Enjoy your own company (83.6%)” the highest percentage answered yes, and “Get lonely (13.4%)” the highest percentage answered no. In Choices, the highest rate of yes (68.4%) was given to the question “Do some activities by yourself, keeping your independence?,” while the highest rate of no (58.5%) was given to the question “Participate in activities that give you satisfaction?” (Table 4).

Table 4.

Findings of participants’ “Being with others” and “Choices.”

Items	Yes	Occasionally	No
	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Being with others
Enjoy the company of other people	125 (73.1)	40 (23.4)	6 (3.5)
Get lonely	85 (49.7)	63 (36.9)	23 (13.4)
Enjoy your own company	143 (83.6)	26 (15.2)	2 (1.2)
Regularly visit/talk to your family or friends	115 (67.3)	49 (28.7)	7 (4.1)
Have someone to support you, if you feel you need help	140 (81.9)	26 (15.2)	5 (2.9)
Choices
Live feeling you are in control of your life	92 (53.8)	22 (12.8)	57 (33.4)
Choose what you want to do in a day/week	15 (8.8)	64 (37.4)	92 (53.8)
Do some activities by yourself, keeping your independence	117 (68.4)	43 (25.1)	11 (6.4)
Participate in activities that give you satisfaction	27 (15.8)	44 (25.7)	100 (58.5)
Feel good about yourself as a person	109 (63.7)	41 (23.9)	21 (12.4)

Discussion and implications

This study used the adapted MLSQ (3), which examines the quality of life holistically and includes client views, to determine the priorities of elderly people in Turkey for quality of life. In addition, the study results are unique in revealing the status of the elderly in Turkey in many factors such as activities of daily living, living situation, work, beliefs and values, and choices. MLSQ (3) is a guide for occupational therapists in improving the quality of life of elderly people.

Many assessments in the literature assess elderly people’s quality of life (Kim et al., 2018; Lima et al., 2009). These assessments are based only on general health, diseases, sleep, successful aging, and social relationships (Pequeno et al., 2020). Most of the assessments used are self-administered questionnaires (Cichy et al., 2016). It is therefore reported that such assessments are not sensitive to specific aspects of quality of life (Flor et al., 2013). The MLSQ (3) differs because it is a questionnaire based on a separate structured interview with the elderly. Also, it examines all the factors specified in the World Health Organization’s definition of quality of life. The MLSQ (3) is also unique in that it provides elderly people with the opportunity to choose priorities for their quality of life.

There are limited studies in the literature examining the independence of the elderly in activities of daily living; the current studies generally focus on “total independence-dependence” rather than “activity-based” studies (Pashmdarfard and Azad, 2020). This makes it challenging for occupational therapists who provide activity-based interventions to prioritize their interventions and to identify the key factors in ensuring the quality of life of the elderly (Mayers, 2004). The MLSQ (3) provides questions that assess independence in activities of daily living for quality of life, as well as the identification of priority activities of daily living for the individual. In this study, the MLSQ (3) was used to identify the common problems that elderly individuals experience in daily life and the factors in their quality of life.

This study found several important results in the priorities of elderly people in Turkey for quality of life using the MLSQ (3). The activities that elderly people had difficulty with in daily life in this study included managing stairs, reading and writing, and cleaning the house. In a study involving 765 elderly individuals in Malaysia, it was reported that 1 in 5 of the participants had extreme difficulty in using stairs; however, more than half of them had difficulty (Hairi et al, 2013). In our study, the rate of extreme difficulty was approximately 1 in 12. On the other hand, in the literature and this study, it was pointed out that difficulties in stair use are important with aging.

In a study conducted in Sweden with a sample of 448 people, 80% of the participants stated that they had difficulty cleaning the house (Hellström and Hallberg, 2001). In this study, half of the participants were independent in cleaning the house. The age of the elderly in the study may have contributed to this result. Activity independence in different age groups should be compared. However, home cleaning and management was a quality of life priority for the elderly; this factor may help in determining whether the elderly live in their homes rather than in care centers.

This study shows that Turkish elderly people find it difficult to perform reading and writing activities independently; and that watching TV is the most important favorite activity for them. Many studies in the literature suggest that the elderly spend their daily lives in passive and sedentary activities such as watching TV (Gallucci et al., 2009; Intorre et al., 2007). In particular, the decrease in the tendency to read and write with aging, as well as changes in functional skills associated with aging (e.g., decreased vision, cognitive problems, coordination deficits), can result in a decrease in the performance of elderly in reading and writing activities (Sekiguchi and Kawashima, 2007). A qualitative study conducted in Singapore found that reading and writing can provide social interaction, increase social responsibility and self-esteem, and maintain a connection to life for the elderly (Luyt and Ann, 2011). In our study, the elderly had difficulty participating in reading and writing activities. This may have played an important role in their participation in activities that they prioritized as important for their quality of life, such as making decisions about their own lives, participating in paid and volunteer work, and participating in spiritual activities. It is thought that future studies should examine the relationship between the elderly’ reading and writing skills and their participation in these types of activities and that it is important to provide training for the elderly in this area.

Quality of life is affected by the cultural, social, and environmental context (Brajković et al., 2009). In terms of these environmental factors, it is of great importance that the elderly live in a safe and private environment (Schopp et al., 2003). Bowling and Brown have stated that the most important factor in the emotional well-being of the elderly is living in their own homes; they also noted that this may be more important than social support (Bowling and Browne, 1991). Karakaya et al. (2009) reported in a study that elderly individuals who lived in their own homes had a higher quality of life and a lower risk of depression than those who lived in nursing homes. In our study, the elderly also stated that they live safely and privately in their home environments. However, at this point, the problems they experience in making choices about their own lives, especially, show that the other social environment should be examined in detail, in addition to the physical environment. It is of great importance for the quality of life of the elderly to be able to make independent decisions without any limitations and for the environment to respect these decisions (Saghafi et al., 2019).

In recent years, many countries have been encouraging the elderly to participate in paid and volunteer work to support their social participation (Fujiwara et al., 2016). Paid and volunteer work can have many positive effects, such as financial support, social contribution, maintenance of cognitive functions, and reduced risk of depression and isolation (Hinterlong et al., 2007; Schwingel et al., 2009). In a study including 1503 elderly people in Finland, 76.4% of the participants were not engaged in any voluntary work, but 50.8% were in paid work; also, only 31.9% were involved in voluntary work, and 46.3% were willing to engage in paid work (Akintayo et al., 2016). In Turkey, 7% were paid and 15.8% in voluntary work, but 74.2% were willing. This situation underlines the urgent need to organize activities for active aging in Turkey. In particular, occupational therapists must activate this population through community-based activities based on active aging and vocational rehabilitation.

There are many studies in the literature on the relationship between spirituality and spiritual activities and quality of life (Mofidi et al., 2006; Moon and Kim, 2013). These studies have shown a positive relationship between spirituality and quality of life. It has been stated that praying in the elderly, in particular, reduces the risk of depression (Mofidi et al., 2006). Similarly, it is seen that participation in religious activities is associated with a significant level of social support (Singh et al., 2020). Molina et al., in their study on spirituality in the elderly, found that the elderly gave importance to spiritual beliefs at a high level (Molina et al, 2020). In our study, the vast majority elderly had important spiritual beliefs and values; however, they had problems participating in these environments. The elderly have spiritual values, but participation is limited. It is thought that spirituality is important for the elderly because it helps them find the meaning and purpose of their lives, cope with the losses seen in old age, and provide an optimistic perspective. Studies are needed to examine the participation of the elderly in spiritual activities in more detail.

This study, which is of great importance in examining the prioritization of the Turkish-adapted MLSQ (3) for quality of life in elderly individuals, has several limitations. The fact that the majority of our participants were in the young elderly group may have affected the study results. In addition, the fact that the majority of the participants were married and primary school graduates may have affected the factors related to quality of life. It is thought that it is important to include homogeneous groups in future studies and to compare the quality of life. The MLSQ (3) does not provide a total score, which limits the comparison of priorities for the quality of life of elderly people from different populations and cultures. It also limits the examination of changes in performance over time.

Conclusion

The Turkish-adapted MLSQ (3) can be a valuable assessment to determine the prioritization of quality of life priorities for elderly people in Turkey. The MLSQ(3), which is a person- and activity-based assessment, will provide a great convenience for clinicians working in geriatric rehabilitation to determine priorities for treatment by multidimensional assessment of the priorities of elderly individuals for quality of life with appropriate adaptations to Turkish culture.

Key findings

The MLSQ (3) provides a holistic perspective on setting priorities for quality of life in elderly people.

For elderly people, managing stairs, reading and writing, paid/volunteer work, participating in spiritual activities, and making choices about their own lives are priorities for quality of life.

Prioritizing and addressing priorities for quality of life will play a key role in managing the problems associated with the increasing elderly.

What the study has added

The MLSQ (3) enables occupational therapists to set priorities for the quality of life of elderly people in a multidimensional perspective. It guides occupational therapists to create a holistic view by including many dimensions from activities of daily living to spirituality.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-bjo-10.1177_03080226241249283 – Supplemental material for Assessing the quality of life priorities in the elderly: Application of the Turkish-Adapted Mayers’ Lifestyle Questionnaire (3)

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-bjo-10.1177_03080226241249283 for Assessing the quality of life priorities in the elderly: Application of the Turkish-Adapted Mayers’ Lifestyle Questionnaire (3) by Medine Nur Özata Değerli, Onur Altuntaş and Gonca Bumin in British Journal of Occupational Therapy

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-bjo-10.1177_03080226241249283 – Supplemental material for Assessing the quality of life priorities in the elderly: Application of the Turkish-Adapted Mayers’ Lifestyle Questionnaire (3)

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-bjo-10.1177_03080226241249283 for Assessing the quality of life priorities in the elderly: Application of the Turkish-Adapted Mayers’ Lifestyle Questionnaire (3) by Medine Nur Özata Değerli, Onur Altuntaş and Gonca Bumin in British Journal of Occupational Therapy

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

None.

Research ethics

This study was approved by the Hacettepe University Non-Interventional Clinical Research Ethics Committee meeting dated May 5, 2020, with ethics committee number GO-20/140.

Consent

Prior to the assessment, participants were given a written informed consent form. Participants were included in the study after verbally and in writing approving this form.

Patient and public involvement data

During the development, progress, and reporting of the submitted research, Patient and Public Involvement in the research was included in the conduct of the research.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) declared no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Contributorship

Problem or hypothesis: GB, Structuring the experimental design: GB, MNÖD, Organizing and conducting the statistical analysis: OA, MNÖD, Interpreting the results: GB, MNÖD, Writing a major portion of the paper: OA, MNÖD.

ORCID iDs

Medine Nur Özata Değerli

Onur Altuntaş

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Akintayo

Häkälä

Ropponen

, et al. (2016) Predictive factors for voluntary and/or paid work among adults in their sixties. Social Indicators Research 128: 1387–1404.

Beaton

Bombardier

Guillemin

, et al. (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 25: 3186–3191.

Bilgili

Arpacı

(2014) Quality of life of older adults in Turkey. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 59: 415–421.

Bircher

(2005) Towards a dynamic definition of health and disease. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 8: 335–341.

Bowling

Browne

(1991) Social networks, health, and emotional well-being among the oldest old in London. Journal of Gerontology 46: S20–S32.

Brajković

Godan

(2009) Quality of life after stroke in old age: Comparison of persons living in nursing home and those living in their own home. Croatian Medical Journal 50: 182–188.

Burks

des Bordes

Chadha

, et al. (2021) Quality of life assessment in older adults with dementia: A systematic review. De mentia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders 50: 103–110.

Caliskan

Aycicek

Ozsurekci

, et al. (2019) Turkish validation of a new scale from older people’s perspectives: Older people’s quality of life-brief (OPQOL-brief). Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 83: 91–95.

Çam

Atay

Aygar

Öcal

, et al. (2021) Elderly people’s quality of life in rural areas of Turkey and its relationship with loneliness and sociodemographic characteristics. Psychogeriatrics 21: 795–804.

10.

Cichy

Bishop

Roessler

, et al. (2016) Non-vocational health-related correlates of quality of life for older adults living with multiple sclerosis. Journal of Rehabilitation 82(3): 36–44.

11.

Eser

Saatlı

Eser

, et al. (2010) The reliability and validity of the Turkish Version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument-Older Adults Module (WHOQOL-Old). Turkish Journal of Psychiatry 21(1): 37–48.

12.

Flor

Campos

Laguardia

(2013) Quality of life, social position and occupational groups in Brazil: Evidence from a population-based survey. Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia 16: 748–762.

13.

Fujiwara

Shinkai

Kobayashi

, et al. (2016) Engagement in paid work as a protective predictor of basic activities of daily living disability in Japanese urban and rural community-dwelling elderly residents: An 8-year prospective study. Geriatrics & Gerontology International 16: 126–134.

14.

Gallucci

Antuono

Ongaro

, et al. (2009) Physical activity, socialization and reading in the elderly over the age of seventy: What is the relation with cognitive decline? Evidence from “The Treviso Longeva (TRELONG) study”. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 48: 284–286.

15.

Ghosh

Dinda

(2020) Determinants of the quality of life among elderly: Comparison between China and India. The International Journal of Community and Social Development 2: 71–98.

16.

Gutterman

(2023) World Health Organization and Older Persons. SSRN Electronic Journal. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4320044 (accessed September 2023).

17.

Hairi

Bulgiba

Peramalah

, et al. (2013) Do older people with visual impairment and living alone in a rural developing country report greater difficulty in managing stairs? Preventive Medicine 56: 8–11.

18.

Hellström

Hallberg

(2001) Perspectives of elderly people receiving home help on health, care and quality of life. Health & Social Care in the Community 9: 61–71.

19.

Hinterlong

Morrow-Howell

Rozario

(2007) Productive engagement and late life physical and mental health: Findings from a nationally representative panel study. Research on Aging 29: 348–370.

20.

Intorre

Maiani

Cuzzolaro

, et al. (2007) Descriptive data on lifestyle, anthropometric status and mental health in Italian elderly people. The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging 11: 165.

21.

Karakaya

Bilgin

Ekici

, et al. (2009) Functional mobility, depressive symptoms, level of independence, and quality of life of the elderly living at home and in the nursing home. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 10: 662–666.

22.

Kim

Won

(2018) Association between involuntary weight loss with low muscle mass and health-related quality of life in community-dwelling older adults: Nationwide surveys (KNHANES 2008–2011). Experimental Gerontology 106: 39–45.

23.

Lima

Barros

MBDA

César

CLG

, et al. (2009) Health related quality of life among the elderly: A population-based study using SF-36 survey. Cadernos de saúde pública 25: 2159–2167.

24.

Luyt

Ann

(2011) Reading, the library, and the elderly: A Singapore case study. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 43: 204–212.

25.

Malkina-Pykh

Pykh

(2008) Quality-of-life indicators at different scales: Theoretical background. Ecological Indicators 8(6): 854–862.

26.

Mayers

(1998) An evaluation of the use of the Mayers’ Lifestyle Questionnaire. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 61: 393–398.

27.

Mayers

(2000) Quality of life: Priorities for people with enduring mental health problems. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 63: 591–597.

28.

Mayers

(2003) The development and evaluation of the Mayers’ Lifestyle Questionnaire (2). British Journal of Occupational Therapy 66: 388–395.

29.

Mayers

(2004) Reflect on the past to shape the future. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 67: 175–184.

30.

Medhi

Sarma

Pala

, et al. (2019) Association between health related quality of life (HRQOL) and activity of daily living (ADL) among elderly in an urban setting of Assam, India. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care 8: 1760.

31.

Mofidi

Devellis

Blazer

, et al. (2006) Spirituality and depressive symptoms in a racially diverse US sample of community-dwelling adults. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 194: 975–977.

32.

Molina

NPFM

Tavares

DMDS

Haas

, et al. (2020). Religiousity, spirituality and quality of life of elderly according to structural equation modeling. Texto & Contexto-Enfermagem 29: e20180468.

33.

Moon

Kim

(2013) Association between religiosity/spirituality and quality of life or depression among living-alone elderly in a South Korean city. Asia-Pacific Psychiatry 5: 293–300.

34.

Nikkhah

Heravi-Karimooi

Montazeri

, et al. (2018) Psychometric properties the Iranian version of older People’s quality of life questionnaire (OPQOL). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 16: 1–10.

35.

Pashmdarfard

Azad

(2020) Assessment tools to evaluate Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) in older adults: A systematic review. Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran 34: 33.

36.

Pequeno

NPF

Cabral

NLDA

Marchioni

, et al. (2020) Quality of life assessment instruments for adults: A systematic review of population-based studies. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 18: 1–13.

37.

Reitz

Scaffa

(2020) Occupational therapy in the promotion of health and well-being. AJOT: American Journal of Occupational Therapy 74: 7403420010–7403420014.

38.

Saghafi

Bahramnezhad

Poormollamirza

, et al. (2019) Examining the ethical challenges in managing elder abuse: A systematic review. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine 12: 7.

39.

Schopp

Leino-Kilpi

Välimäki

, et al. (2003) Perceptions of privacy in the care of elderly people in five European countries. Nursing ethics 10: 39–47.

40.

Schwingel

Niti

Tang

, et al. (2009) Continued work employment and volunteerism and mental well-being of older adults: Singapore longitudinal ageing studies. Age and Ageing 38: 531–537.

41.

Sekiguchi

Kawashima

(2007) Cognitive rehabilitation—the learning therapy for the senile dementia. Brain and Nerve= Shinkei kenkyu no shinpo 59: 357–365.

42.

Singh

Junnarkar

Singh

, et al. (2020) Associations between religious/spiritual practices and well-being in Indian elderly rural women. Journal of Religion and Health 59: 2753–2774.

43.

Tas

Verhagen

Bierma-Zeinstra

, et al. (2007) Prognostic factors of disability in older people: A systematic review. British Journal of General Practice 57: 319–323.

44.

Toledano-González

Labajos-Manzanares

Romero-Ayuso

(2019) Well-being, self-efficacy and independence in older adults: a randomized trial of occupational therapy. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 83: 277–284.

45.

Türkoğlu

Adıbelli

(2014) Yaşlılarda yaşam kalitesi ölçeğinin (CASP-19) Türk toplumuna adaptasyonu. Akad Geriatri 6: 98–105.

46.

Turkish Statistical Institute (2021) Demographic Indicators. Turkish Statistical Institute News Bulletin, 37227. Available at: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Istatistiklerle-Yaslilar-2021-45636 (accessed March 2023).

47.

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2019). World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights. United Nations, New York. Available at https://www.ined.fr/fichier/s_rubrique/29368/wpp2019_10.key.findings_embargoed.version.en (accessed June 2023).

48.

Van Leeuwen

Van Loon

Van Nes

, et al. (2019) What does quality of life mean to older adults? A thematic synthesis. PLoS One 14: e0213263.

49.

Weber

Pott

(2011) Assessment: Mayers’ Lifestyle Questionnaire–Den Lebensstil erfassen. ergopraxis 4: 30–31.

50.

World Health Organization (1998) Programme on Mental health: WHOQOL User Manual. World Health Organization, Genava.

51.

World Health Organization (2020) Health at a Glance: Asia/Pacific 2020 Measuring Progress Towards Universal Health Coverage: Measuring Progress Towards Universal Health Coverage. OECD publishing, Paris.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB