Next Article in Journal
Durability Performance Evaluation of Rubberized Geopolymer Concrete
Next Article in Special Issue
Health Implications of Judo Training
Previous Article in Journal
Metrics to Accelerate Private Sector Investment in Sustainable Development Goal 2—Zero Hunger
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of COVID-19 Lockdown on Physical Activity and Health-Related Quality of Life in Older Adults Who Regularly Exercise
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 11
10.3390/su13115968
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Descriptive Analytical Study on Physical Activity and Quality of Life in Sustainable Aging

by
Helena Andrade Figueira
1,*,
Olivia Andrade Figueira
2,
Carla Corradi-Perini
2,
Alejandro Martínez-Rodríguez
3,
Alan Andrade Figueira
2,
Carlos Roberto Lyra da Silva
1 and
Estelio Henrique Martin Dantas
1
1
PosGraduation Program of Nursing and BioSciences—PpgEnfBio—Alfredo Pinto Nursing School, Rio de Janeiro State Federal University (UNIRIO), Rio de Janeiro 22180-290, Brazil
2
Life Science School, Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana (PUR-PR), Curitiba 80215-901, Brazil
3
Department of Analytical Chemistry, Nutrition and Food Sciences, Faculty of Sciences, Universidad de Alicante (UA), 03690 Alicante, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(11), 5968; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115968
Submission received: 30 March 2021 / Revised: 10 May 2021 / Accepted: 18 May 2021 / Published: 25 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Physical Activity, Aging, and Lifestyle Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Physical activity (PA) improves the quality of life (QOL) of older people, increasing overall health and well-being and enabling them to take control over their own lives, and is highly correlated with sustainable aging. Objective: To relate the practice of PA with QOL for sustainable aging. Method: The sample of this cross-sectional inquiry analytical observational ex post facto research was composed of 690 community-dwelling older people of both genders, non-selected volunteers, living in Brazil, present at a road run in Rio de Janeiro, from 30 October 2019 to 12 March 2020, that answered an instrument starting with profile questions, followed by selected questions on QOL from world health organization quality of life for old age (WHOQOL-Old) and on PA from Baecke-Old. Results: The mean age bracket was 65–69 years, 73.6% female. This sample was characterized as active (84%), having university level education (75%), fitting the concept of a high level of QOL (73.35 ± 12.6). QOL was distributed as: 562 (81.2%) at 70–100%; 123 (17.9%) at 41–69%; 5 (0.7%) at 32–40%. Between active and sedentary lifestyle and QOL, the sedentary lifestyle presented a lower QOL score while the active QOL score was highest, with a correspondence with p < 0.001, DF = 2, with 99.9% certainty and Pearson’s chi-square test critical value = 19.2. Conclusion: The sample of older people characterized by high QOL and PA with a university level education suggests the triangulation between advanced education, PA and QOL. The QOL of the older people with high scores was associated with the practice of PA, and low scores were associated with a sedentary lifestyle; this conclusion can be applied to sustainable aging of general society.

1. Introduction

Worldwide, the proportion of people aged 60 and over is growing faster than any other age group [1]. The older population has increased exponentially over the past few years, and it should continue to grow in next few decades, from 841 million people in 2013 to more than 2 billion in 2050 [2]. When developing policies related to population aging, there has been a global promotion of active aging for sustainability, promoting the right of older people to health and active participation in social and community activities [3]. Active aging policies and programs allow them to remain engaged according to their abilities and preferences as they age, preventing or delaying disabilities [4]. In addition, active aging has the potential to confront many of the challenges of individual and population aging, improving mental health and promoting social contacts [5]. Sustainability, once established as a guiding norm for the development of society, can become a deep structural gradient of strength [6], acting on aging and health. This fact could be considered as fundamental to support the decade of healthy aging (2020–2030) proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and, additionally, to have the opportunity to achieve the goals of sustainable development, developed to guarantee “the future we want” [7].
Public policy makers in Brazil are promoting PA as a key component in national health plans for the older population [8]. PA should be approached in a broad way, because in addition to the practice of physical exercises, it involves structuring the routine and is practiced through social interaction, becoming a socialization activity [9]. The scientific standard of PA for the older population [10] includes recreation, occupation, leisure, transportation, home care, and reaching a minimum of 150 min a week of physical activity. Furthermore, the internationally validated Baecke-Old questionnaire [11] contemplates this approach. There is consensus in the academic literature on the benefit of the practice of individual and/or collective PA for the older population, both in health and in quality of life [12]. Being active helps older people to remain as independent as possible for the longest period of time, participating in physical activities (PAs), delaying functional decline, identifying strengths, personal values, and interests, and creating a full life [13].
Quality of life (QOL) has been defined as subjective well-being reflecting the distance between one’s own goals, expectations, standards, and concerns and the effective experience, supported by the achievement of goals according to the value system in which the person is inserted [14]. It is a subjective and broad concept with multiple dimensions that encompass physical, psychological, emotional, mental, spiritual, social, and environmental conditions, including positive and negative aspects of life [15]. Sufficient unanimity has been observed to confirm that older people have peculiar issues in common, constituting relevant specificity for QOL [14]. In older people, a predictor of better QOL is increased PA, while a predictor of decreased QOL is loss of mobility [15]. The World Health Organization’s Quality of Life Group (WHOQOL Group) developed a specific QOL scale for older people, in a cross-cultural perspective, the WHOQOL-Old [16], which was validated, translated, and adapted to Portuguese [17].
There is a global need to evolve towards sustainable aging, following the WHO and the United Nations proposal on the development of sustainable public policies to implement QOL, focusing on older people and aging population QOL. Implementing PA and QOL to promote active aging and dignify older people is a moral and ethical challenge, targeting what marginalizes and isolates older people [18]. The authors hypothesized that raising older people’s QOL is essential to gain information about how the PA may have an effect on the QOL in the older population. For this reason, the main aim of this study was to study PA and its relationship with the QOL in older people, in the context of sustainable aging.

2. Material and Methods

Design and Ethics in Research: This cross-sectional inquiry analytical observational ex post facto research adhering to the Helsinki Declaration [19] was approved by the Research Ethics Board—UNIRIO on 30 October 2019, number 3.670.727.
Sample: The sample consisted of 690 older people living in the community (WHO, 2002), of both genders, as unselected Brazilian volunteers, present (as a participant or observer) in street races in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 30 October 2019 to 12 March 2020. The exclusion criteria were blindness, deafness, or cognitive impairment, which would be an obstacle to answering the questionnaire. To determine the sample size, the population of elderly people in Brazil was used according to the National Census [20], which was 20,590,599, with a 95% confidence level and a confidence interval of 4, and a desirable sample size of 600 was reached.
Data Collection: The instrument composed for this research started with eight sociodemographic questions adopted by the Brazilian Demographic Census [20]: a. Full name (in code); b. Gender; c. Age group; d. Co-habitation; e. Marital status; f. Schooling. These were followed by selected questions from the WHOQOL-Old [11] questionnaire: a. Losses in the senses (hearing, sight, taste, smell and touch) that affect your daily life, b. How much freedom do you have to make your own decisions, c. Are you afraid to die, d. Can you do the things you like, e. Are you satisfied with the opportunities to continue achieving achievements in your life, f. Do you feel that you have received the recognition you deserve in life, g. Do you feel love in your life. In calculating the levels of results of the WHOQOL-Old questionnaire [21], self-assessed from 0 to 4, the score was weighted by dividing the older people into three groups: 0–40 = low QOL; 41–69 = moderate QOL; 69–100 = high QOL. These were followed by five PA questions selected from the Baecke-Old questionnaire [22]: a. Do you do some heavy housework; B. How many steps do you go up in a day; c. What form of transport you use; d. Practicing physical activity (walking, running, Pilates, yoga, fighting, swimming, etc.); e. In leisure time you … Each facet had 4 items—on a Likert scale from 1 to 5—resulting in a set of scores per facet ranging from 4 to 20 and a total score (TS).
The sample selection procedure was a person-to-person approach, and involved explaining that a QOL survey was being carried out, and participants were invited to answer the questionnaire, which was available online. The main researcher personally approached the older people in individual sessions by applying the questionnaire, lasting approximately 10/15 min, asking them to keep in mind their values, hopes, concerns, and expectations in the last two weeks when answering, after signing the informed consent. In order to maintain a high scientific standard, the double-blind statistical method was adopted, making sure that the people involved did not have access to certain information that could lead to biases, and the results were tabulated by an independent researcher, without prior knowledge of the hypotheses being tested, and the researchers were tested for intra- and inter-rater error [23].
Data Analysis: Descriptive statistical measures of dispersion and location were used: mean and standard deviation. Nonparametric statistics included procedures to check the sample homogeneity; hypothesis testing procedures; post hoc procedures. The chi-square and Spearman tests were used, analyzing the possible associations and comparisons between the study variables, assuming a probability of α = 5% for the results obtained at random, with an experimental power corresponding to at least 80%, allowing control of type II errors of 20%. The software used was SPSS version 25.

3. Results

Regarding the sample profile of the older population, there was a greater participation of women and those aged between 60 and 70 years old, living with family, married, with an educational level above high school. The present research adopted an age range, and the average age of the sample ranged from 65 to 69 years. The sample profile is shown in Table 1.
Physical Activity Results of the Sample: The results of the responses to the Baecke-Old inventory in absolute and percentage values are presented in Table 2. Almost 50% of the older people did any heavy housework; usually climb 1–5 steps per day; use a car as their means of transportation; study or watch TV during leisure hours. Additionally, 33% practice physical activity (walking, running, Pilates, yoga, fighting, etc.) three times a week, 30 min per day. Taking into account the WHO guidelines for PA for the elderly [24], all the elderly people in the sample who had a total of 0 to 2 in the Baecke-Old were classified as sedentary, and the elderly people who had a total above 3 were considered active. Of the 690 elderly people who made up this sample, 582 (84%) were active, while 108 (16%) were sedentary, characterizing the sample as mostly active.
Quality of Life Results of the Sample: The total mean QOL of the sample was 73.4% and the standard deviation was 12.6%. Figure 1 presents the total sum of QOL separated by levels in percentage and absolute values.
The results of the WHOQOL-Old inventory by facet in percentages are presented in Table 3, underlining that facets A and C have a reverse score.
The total QOL mean and standard deviation were 73.35 ± 12.6 with the distribution of answers by the facets of WHOQOL-Old visualized in Figure 2.
Comparing the QOL of active and sedentary older people, Figure 3 shows the division of the sample by these clusters, presenting that among the older people in the sample who reported low QOL, 1.29% were from the active group and 52.53% were from the sedentary group.
When comparing QOL and PA, there is a correspondence between active and sedentary lifestyle and QOL, with 99.993% certainty, p < 0.001. Pearson’s chi-square test has a critical value of 19.218, with 2 degrees of freedom (FD), stating that a good relationship between QOL and PA is observed, with p < 0.05.

4. Discussion

The results of the current study showed 99.9% confidence that the highest QOL is presented by older people who practice PA. All active older people who practice PA have high or moderate QOL, while inactive people have low QOL (53%) and only 47% among the inactive older people have high QOL. A significant statistical correlation was found between QOL and PA, p < 0.001, showing that it can be applied to society as a whole. These older people, living in a community, whose average age range is 65–69 are characterized as practicing PA (84%), female (74%), having university level education (75%), and high QOL (73.35 ± 12.6). QOL was distributed as follows: 81% of older people from 70–100%; 18% from 41–69%; 1% from 32–40%.
Research in a nursing home for older people in the Netherlands found an average QOL of 60% [25], as well as a survey carried out in Brazil, with 238 older people found showing QOL aspects between 50% and 72% [26]. Compared with the current research (73.35 ± 12.6), it is observed that the QOL reported by the these studies is lower.
The highlights regarding the facets are: “you are free to make your own decisions” with an average of 88%; three questions contributed to the high QOL with an average of 80%: the loss of senses affects your life; being able to do the things you like; and feeling love in your life; three issues reduced QoL with an average of 68%: having opportunities to continue achieving achievements in life; have received due recognition; death and dying. These results are higher than those usually found in the literature [14]. A study in Brazil found its lowest QOL for being afraid of death and dying, 38%, and having opportunities to continue achievements in life, 50%, demonstrating the existence of a massive preoccupation on these themes, while Indian older people revealed associations with being afraid of death and dying resulting in QOL = 55%, and having opportunities to continue achievements in life, 66% [14]. Both samples were composed of older people with a low educational level, which may suggest that a high educational level can improve QOL, in every QOL facet.

4.1. QOL—Educational Level

The Brazilian population at the university level according to the 2010 census [16] is 11.3% of the total population; the sample of this research presented 75.4% at the university level, therefore the educational level of the sample was considered relevant to be discussed. The other sociodemographic aspects that did not stand out in relation to the Brazilian population were not considered relevant in this study. QOL is rather poor in older people with a low education level, which was found in a study among Iranian older people [27]. QOL is positively affected by high educational level [28], and older people with low educational levels report the worst physical and functional conditioning, while the highly educated ones progress more in terms of functional limitations over time [29].
A positive association was observed between the educational level and the high QOL of the present sample of older people (75.4%). Research carried out with older people with a low level of education in Brazil reached a maximum of 60% in the facets of QOL, and the total average found was less than 50%, while in India similar research did not reach a value above 67% in any facet [14]. A survey of 144 physically active older people with a low level of education in Brazil, 88% of whom were female, identified a total mean QOL lower than 66% [30]. A survey in Brazil with 107 older people with a low educational level, 67% female, reported QOL = 60.5 ± 11.1 [31]. Research with older people with a low educational level in Brazil found for this topic and association of 45% [32], and in India, 49%. Both samples had a low educational level, compared to that of the present research with a high educational level [14]. Older people’s QOL can be affected by health and cultural conditions [33]. In this present research, it was observed that the topic that raised QOL the most, with an average of 88%, was having the freedom to make their own decisions.

4.2. QOL and Family Life

Research carried out in England with 11,234 non-institutionalized older people revealed that QOL is reduced by limitations in mobility and difficulties in daily activities, and it rises with trusting relationships and frequent contacts with family and friends [33]. In a study conducted in Varanasi, India with 100 older people (50 living with their families and 50 living separated from their families), a significant difference was found in the levels of QOL between those living with their families and those living apart [34]. Most of the older people around the world continue to be a vital resource for their families and their communities [35]. A study conducted in Korea analyzing 959 older people concluded that those who live alone have a lower level of QOL than those who live with their families [36]. QOL is quite low among single older people, and those who live with their spouses have a higher level of QOL [27]. While globally around one seventh of the older population lives alone [8], because the young population migrates to the cities, and older people are left alone [37], in the present study, 25% of the older people reported living alone. All of these studies corroborate what was found in this research, where approximately 69% of the older people claimed to live with their families, 54% of whom were married, and the QOL (73.35 ± 12.6) was remarkably high.

4.3. QOL and PA

There is a consensus in the literature regarding the effects of PA on QOL, that the level of QOL increases with the intensity of PA [38]. Participating in PA for 60 min a day, two or three times a week, increases the QOL in relation to the sedentary lifestyle, providing health and well-being [39]. The presence of high QOL associated with physical activity goes beyond the sense of physical health, involving behavioral, emotional, and physical aspects, factors perceived as a way to remain active during the aging process [40]. Enriching older people’s leisure activities strongly enhances their QOL [41]. A recent study in Brazil with 1197 older people concluded that a factor that contributes to raising QOL is the practice of PA [40]. A survey conducted recently in Brazil with 107 older people with a low educational level, 67% female, with QOL = 60.5 ± 11.1, and high adherence to a physical activity program (78.5%) showed a direct and positive relationship of interdependence, where the higher the level of practice of PA, the greater the QOL [31]. The present research, in view of the confirmation of Pearson and chi-square hypothesis tests, concluded that a good relationship between QOL and PA was observed in the sample, with p < 0.001, that can be applied to the population, and to society as a whole.
Increasing health as a whole, and not only mental health but also physical health, PA has positive effects on well-being in general, while aging is associated with frailty and functional limitations due to an irreversible biological process with effects of comorbidities when associated with a sedentary lifestyle, and a sedentary lifestyle still tends to predominate in aging [42]. Despite the proven benefits of PA, a sedentary lifestyle still tends to predominate in many countries. Policies and programs should encourage inactive older people to become more active and should provide them with an opportunity to do so [4]. Aging in each society is determined by cultural values and traditions that also influence the behavior of older people, who may not have an extended period of good health, although there has been an increase in longevity [43]. The effects of aging, such as functional losses in the musculature, which start with a reduction in speed, strength, stability, and firmness, are associated with serious health consequences such as fragility, morbidity, and mortality with an impact on QOL [44], and contribute to limiting PA practice and well-being in general, however, physical conditioning can easily reverse this situation and greatly increase older people’s QOL [30]. Most research on PA in older people is focused on healthy individuals living in the community, but there is also emerging evidence regarding the benefits of PA even for frail and cognitively impaired older people [45], since PA is a promising non-pharmacological method for promoting health, and is available to all people [42].

4.4. Sustainable Aging

The framework of the active aging policy [5] suggests a new paradigm, which sees older people as active participants in an age-integrated society and as active contributors as well as beneficiaries of development [4]. Active refers to continuous participation in matters, but not only being physically active, and health refers to well-being, therefore, policies and programs that increase the well-being and participation of older people in the matters they refer to are particularly welcome [12]. The agenda for sustainable development with 12 integrated and indivisible goals proposes a way to achieve these goals with a focus on the growing priority of promoting the well-being of older people worldwide [46]. Recognition of the value of prevention programs for older people grows [8]. Prevention need not be expensive, however, in many countries, health promotion campaigns and initiatives have received little priority or remained unavailable to large sections of the older population [5]. The public health policy agenda for healthy aging encourages PA as being crucial for healthy aging [47], benefiting not only older people but also their direct environments and society as a whole, as well as the economy [48]. With a high level of physical function, coping with deterioration and impairment, aging is successful [49]. Aging is characterized by transformations at all levels, whether social, emotional, mental, physical, or psychological, and in it the biological and the familiar aspects, among others, interact individually and in a complex way [50]. Active aging is defined as a process of optimizing opportunities for health and participation, empowering older people in order to enhance QOL as people age; this applies to both individuals and population groups [4]. Policies and programs that remain tied to outdated paradigms associating aging with retirement, illness, and dependence do not reflect reality, since most older people remain independent, promoting their own health, and taking control of their lives [13].
The aging process simultaneously involves biological, cultural, social, psychological, environmental, historical, political, and economic factors, producing different social representations of aging and older people. Integrating with the social environment, interacting, expressing ideas, contributing to social actions, the perception of needs, and the opportunity to achieve happiness and feel fulfilled at all levels are aspects of QOL. Sustainable changes require changes in behavior, values, philosophy of life, and self-acceptance, and a radical change in the aging paradigm, from decrepitude to active aging. Accepting aging provides older people with adequate tools to embrace this new phase of their lives as it unfolds, just as they embraced their youth and maturity. The quest is to be able to escape the limits of aging by opening up to new adventures instead of allowing life to end like an impasse [16]. Promoting QOL through sustainable aging is an individual challenge and for the health system of the society in which the older people are inserted, involving proposing new standards of individual and collective conduct, promoting dialogues of values and goals. The process is based on scientific knowledge, is inserted in the respective cultural platform, maintains the subjectivity of older people, and enables their capacity for socio-political articulation, for the personal construction of their dignity to grow old as unique, individual subjects, and authors of their own existence.

5. Conclusions

The sample of the present research was characterized as active (84%) with high QOL (73.4 ± 12.6), age range 65–69, 74% female, and 75% with a university degree (94% with a high school diploma). The hypothesis test confirmed the correspondence between PA and QOL with absolute certainty (99.99%), confirming that older people who practice PA have a high level of QOL, a conclusion that can be applied in society as a whole.
The high QOL and PA in a university education-level senior society brings up the link of advanced education in the triangulation with PA and QOL in promoting opportunities for personal satisfaction in the physical, social, psychological, emotional, mental, and spiritual senses. It suggests that promoting QOL in active aging in a proposal for sustainable development involves each of the factors of development and sustainability, integrating the principles of sustainable development.

6. Strengths and Weaknesses

The present study has a number of strengths, including its sample size. Among its weaknesses are the spatial limitation to only one nation, without comparison with other cultural contexts: a prospective study could cover other countries in the American, European, and Asian continents. Another limitation of this study is its cross-sectional design, which does not allow for determining the action of time on the variables studied; continuous prospective research may allow systematic analysis of PA and its relationship with QOL, as well as confounding factors. Other relevant limitations to consider are that comorbidities, drug addiction, varied aspects of functionality, and emotional and cognitive issues have not been addressed.

7. Difficulties

The COVID-19 pandemic prevented the continuation of data collection, leading older people in Brazil to isolate at home from 12 March 2020. For this reason, the field research had to be ended with the sample obtained at that time.

8. Suggestions

The analysis carried out in this research did not make comparisons of QOL and PA regarding the sociodemographic levels of marital status, stepson of the residence, school level, work, religion, and other sociodemographic aspects. They were also not examined with statistical analyses between the facets of QOL, which can be contemplated in future analysis, if they are considered relevant in the discussion. Other nuanced issues between QOL and PA can be addressed in future research, which is to examine QOL as a psychological construct representing life satisfaction, as well as the clinical and geriatric results of the perceived health status and to identify other possible mediators in the relationship between QOL and PA. A future study can contemplate the types of PA that increase older people’s QOL.

9. Contributions to the Fields of Health

The results found in this study can contribute to the development of public policies aimed at older people, as well as in the development and improvement of policies and programs focused on older people. The study can contribute to improving the promotion of the QOL and physical and psychological health of older people.

Author Contributions

Project administration, E.H.M.D. and C.R.L.d.S.; Publication revision—A.M.-R.; Writing—original draft, H.A.F.; Writing—review and editing, O.A.F. and A.A.F.; Formal analysis, C.C.-P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Research Ethics Board—UNIRIO on 30 October 2019, number 3.670.727.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Global Strategy and Action Plan on Ageing and Health (2016–2020); World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kahleova, H.; Levin, S.; Barnard, N.D. Plant-Based Diets for Healthy Aging. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 2020, 9, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bhaktikul, K.; Aroonsrimorakot, S.; Laiphrakpam, M.; Metadilogkul, O.; Konjengbam, S. Indicators of active ageing for sustainable development: A comparative insights of ageing elderlies from Chiang Mai (highland) and Nakhon Pathom (lowland) Provinces, Thailand. Interdiscip. Res. Rev. 2019, 14, 39–46. [Google Scholar]
  4. Hussenoeder, F.S.; Jentzsch, D.; Matschinger, H.; Hinz, A.; Kilian, R.; Riedel-Heller, S.G.; Conrad, I. Depression and quality of life in old age: A closer look. Eur. J. Ageing 2020, 18, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. World Health Organization. Active Ageing: A Policy Framework; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  6. Schilling, T.; Wyss, R.; Binder, C.R. The Resilience of Sustainability Transitions. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. World Health Organization. Healthy Ageing and the Sustainable Development Goals; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  8. Panza, F.; Lozupone, M.; Solfrizzi, V.; Sardone, R.; Dibello, V.; Di Lena, L.; D’Urso, F.; Stallone, R.; Petruzzi, M.; Giannelli, G.; et al. Different cognitive frailty models and health-and cognitive-related outcomes in older age: From epidemiology to prevention. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. 2018, 62, 993–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Bastos, M.A.M.D.S.C.; Monteiro, J.M.M.D.P.; Faria, C.M.G.M.D.; Pimentel, M.H.; Silva, S.D.L.R.D.; Afonso, C.M.F. Participação em programas de intervenção comunitária e qualidade de vida: Resultados de um estudo multicêntrico em Portugal. Rev. Bras. Geriatr. Gerontol. 2020, 23, e190017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. World Health Organization. Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  11. Voorrips, L.E.; Ravelli, A.C.; Petra, C.; Dongelmans, A.; Deurenberg, P.; van Staveren, W.A. A physical activity questionnaire for the elder. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1991, 23, 974–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Figueira, O.A.; Figueira, H.A.; Dantas, E.H.M.; Franco, R.S.; Perini, C.C. Estratégias para a promoção do envelhecimento ativo no Brasil: Uma revisão integrativa. Res. Soc. Dev. 2020, 9, e1959108556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Baumann, D.; Ruch, W.; Margelisch, K.; Gander, F.; Wagner, L. Character Strengths and Life Satisfaction in Later Life: An Analysis of Different Living Conditions. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2020, 15, 329–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Figueira, H.A.; Figueira, J.A.; Bezerra, J.C.; Dantas, E.H.M. Old Aged Quality of Life: Brazil—India a Cross-cultural Perspective. Indian J. Gerontol. 2009, 23, 66–78. [Google Scholar]
  15. Pérez-Ros, P.; Martínez-Arnau, F.M.; Tarazona-Santabalbina, F.J. Risk factors and number of falls as determinants of quality of life of community-dwelling older adults. J. Geriatr. Phys. Ther. 2019, 42, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Figueira, H.A.; Figueira, J.A.; Mello, D.; Dantas, E.H.M. Quality of life throughout ageing. Acta Med. Litu. 2008, 15, 169–172. [Google Scholar]
  17. Fleck, M.P.; Chachamovich, E.; Trentini, C. Whoqol-Old Project: Method and focus group results in Brazil. Public Health Rev. 2003, 37, 793–799. [Google Scholar]
  18. World Health Organization. Relatorio Mundial de Envelhecimento e Saúde; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  19. IBGE—Intituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica. Censo Demografico; IBGE: Brasilia, Brazil, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  20. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki-Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects; World Medical Association: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 81. [Google Scholar]
  21. Figueira, H.A.; Giani, T.S.; Beresford, H.; Ferreira, M.A.; Mello, D.; Figueira, A.A.; Figueira, J.A.; Dantas, E.H. Quality of life (QOL) axiological profile of the elderly population served by the Family Health Program (FHP) in Brazil. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2009, 49, 368–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Oliveira, L.S.S.C.B.; Souza, E.C.; Rodrigues, R.A.S.; Fett, C.A.; Piva, A.B. The effects of physical activity on anxiety, depression, and quality of life in elderly people living in the community. Trends Psychiatry Psychother. 2019, 41, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Kosmulski, M. Skeptical comment about double-blind trials. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 2010, 16, 339. [Google Scholar]
  24. World Health Organization. WHO Guidelines on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  25. Nijs, K.; Graaf, C.; Kok, F.; Staveren, W. Effects of family style mealtimes on quality of life physical performance and body weight of nursing homes residents: Cluster randomized controlled trial. BMJ 2006, 332, 1180–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Panzini, R.G.; Maganha, C.; Rocha, N.S.D.; Bandeira, D.R.; Fleck, M.P. Brazilian validation of the Quality of Life Instrument/spirituality, religion and personal beliefs. Rev. Saude Publica 2011, 45, 153–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Nunes, M.G.S.; Leal, M.C.C.; Marques, A.P.D.O.; Mendonça, S.D.S. Idosos longevos: Avaliação da qualidade de vida no domínio da espiritualidade, da religiosidade e de crenças pessoais. Saúde Debate 2017, 41, 1102–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Hajian-Tilaki, K.; Heidari, B.; Hajian-Tilaki, A. Health related quality of life and its socio-demographic determinants among Iranian elderly people: A population based cross-sectional study. J. Caring Sci. 2017, 6, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Winters, J.V. Human capital, higher education institutions, and quality of life. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2011, 41, 446–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Barbareschi, G.; Sanderman, R.; Leegte, I.L.; Van Veldhuisen, D.J.; Jaarsma, T. Educational level and the quality of life of heart failure patients: A longitudinal study. J. Card. Fail. 2011, 17, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Mello, D.B.D.; Dantas, E.H.M.; Verdini, M.L.P.; Giani, T.S.; Ferreira, M.A.; Emygdio, R.F.; Hortale, V.A. Impact of Obesity on Quality of Life of Elderly. Med. Sport 2010, 14, 63–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Campos, A.C.V.; Cordeiro, E.D.C.; Rezende, G.P.D.; Vargas, A.M.D.; Ferreira, E.F. Quality of life of elderly practitioners of physical activity in the context of the family health strategy. Texto Contexto Enferm. 2014, 23, 889–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Netuveli, G.; Wiggins, R.D.; Hildon, Z.; Montgomery, S.M.; Blane, D. Quality of life at older ages: Evidence from the English longitudinal study of aging (wave 1). J Epidemiol. Community Health 2006, 60, 357–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Prakash, S.; Srivastava, A.S. Resilience, life satisfaction and perceived stress among elderly people living separately from their adult children-: A cross–sectional comparative study. Int. J. Indian Psychol. 2019, 7, 802–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sahin, D.S.; Ozer, O.; Yanardağ, M.Z. Perceived social support, quality of life and satisfaction with life in elderly people. Educ. Gerontol. 2019, 45, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kwon, M. Factors Influencing Quality of Life Elderly Who Live Alone, Depending on Gender. J. Digit. Converg. 2019, 17, 365–373. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lin, B.; Lin, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, W. The Impact of the New Rural Pension Scheme on Retirement Sustainability in China: Evidence of Regional Differences in Formal and Informal Labor Supply. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Puciato, D.; Borysiuk, Z.; Rozpara, M. Quality of life and physical activity in an older working-age population. Clin. Interv. Aging. 2017, 12, 1627–1634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Trajkov, M.; Eminović, F.; Radovanović, S.; Dopsaj, M.; Pavlović, D.; Kljajić, D. Quality of life and depression in elderly persons engaged in physical activities. Vojnosanit. Pregl. 2018, 75, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Marques, L.P.; Schneider, I.J.C.; D’Orsi, E. Quality of life and its association with work, the Internet, participation in groups and physical activity among the elderly from the EpiFloripa survey, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina State, Brazil. Cad. Saude Publica 2016, 32, e00143615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Xu, H. Physical and mental health of Chinese grandparents caring for grandchildren and great-grandparents. Soc. Sci. Med. 2019, 229, 106–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Latorre-Roman, P.A.; Carmona-Torres, J.M.; Cobo-Cuenca, A.I.; Laredo-Aguilera, J.A. Physical Activity, Ability to Walk, Weight Status, and Multimorbidity Levels in Older Spanish People: The National Health Survey (2009–2017). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. World Health Organization. World Report on Ageing and Health; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  44. Tsekoura, M.; Kastrinis, A.; Katsoulaki, M.; Billis, E.; Gliatis, J. Sarcopenia and its impact on quality of life. GeNeDis 2017, 2016, 213–218. [Google Scholar]
  45. Nuzum, H.; Stickel, A.; Corona, M.; Zeller, M.; Melrose, R.J.; Wilkins, S.S. Potential benefits of physical activity in MCI and dementia. Behav. Neurol. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations Sustainable Development Summit: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sowa, A.; Tobiasz-Adamczyk, B.; Topór-Mądry, R.; Poscia, A.; La Milia, D.I. Predictors of healthy ageing: Public health policy targets. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2016, 16, 441–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Luyten, W.; Antal, P.; Braeckman, B.P.; Bundy, J.; Cirulli, F.; Fang-Yen, C.; Fuellen, G.; Leroi, A.; Liu, Q.; Martorell, P.; et al. Ageing with elegans: A research proposal to map healthspan pathways. Biogerontology 2016, 17, 771–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Lee, E.J.; Park, S.J. Immersive experience model of the elderly welfare centers supporting successful aging. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Marques, R.F. Corpo e liberdade: Possibilidade, condição, ambiguidade. Volunt. Rev. Int. Filos. 2019, 10, 5–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 05968 g001 550
Figure 1. QOL by levels in percentage and absolute values.
Figure 1. QOL by levels in percentage and absolute values.
Sustainability 13 05968 g001
Sustainability 13 05968 g002 550
Figure 2. Distribution of the answers by theme of WHOQOL-Old. Caption: Key to the numerical group 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 = each facet is self-evaluated on a Likert scale from 0 to 4. A. Senses = Loss of senses affects your life; B. Decisions = Freedom to make one’s own decisions; C. Death = Fear of dying; D. Doing = Able to do the things you would like; E. Opportunities = Opportunities to continue achieving achievements in life; F. Recognition = Receive the recognition you deserve in life; G. Love = Feeling love in life.
Figure 2. Distribution of the answers by theme of WHOQOL-Old. Caption: Key to the numerical group 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 = each facet is self-evaluated on a Likert scale from 0 to 4. A. Senses = Loss of senses affects your life; B. Decisions = Freedom to make one’s own decisions; C. Death = Fear of dying; D. Doing = Able to do the things you would like; E. Opportunities = Opportunities to continue achieving achievements in life; F. Recognition = Receive the recognition you deserve in life; G. Love = Feeling love in life.
Sustainability 13 05968 g002
Sustainability 13 05968 g003 550
Figure 3. Percentage comparison of QOL by active and sedentary clusters. Low: <40 points for QOL; moderate: 41–69 points for QOL; high: >70 points for QOL.
Figure 3. Percentage comparison of QOL by active and sedentary clusters. Low: <40 points for QOL; moderate: 41–69 points for QOL; high: >70 points for QOL.
Sustainability 13 05968 g003
Table
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
QuestionsAnswersPercentageAbsolute
GenderFemale73.6509
Male26.2181
Alternative Gender0.11
Age Bracket60–6439.4273
65–6932.9228
70–7418.3127
75–796.143
80–842.014
85–800.75
90–0.64
Living StatusFamily68.5474
Alone24.7171
Friends0.75
Others6.142
Marital StatusSingle10.673
Married/Stable Union54.4376
Separated/Divorced22.8158
Widow1283
SchoolingIlliterate0.00
E.S. Incomplete2.618
E.S. Complete1.410
H.S. Incomplete1.913
H.S. Complete9.264
U.E. Incomplete9.264
U.E. Complete38.4266
Post Graduate37257
Caption: E.S. = Elementary School; H.S. = High School; U.E. = University Education.
Table
Table 2. Results of the responses to the Baecke-Old inventory.
Table 2. Results of the responses to the Baecke-Old inventory.
QuestionAnswerPercentageAbsolute
ANever16.5112
Sometimes47.2326
Almost Always18.6128
Always17.7124
BNever26.8184
1–5 a day46.2319
6–10 a day11.882
>10 a day15.2105
CWalking29.6204
Bike3.021
Car49.6342
Public Transportation17.8123
Never goes out00
DNever29.2201
<30 min/day 3 times/week33228
<30 min/day 5 times/week11.579
<50 min/day 3 times/week12.788
<50 min/day 5 times/week4.632
>50 min/day 3 times/week962
ETV/Read/Study52359
Walk/Run4.430
Gardening/House14.7101
Cycling1.711
Others27.4189
Caption: A. Do you do any heavy housework; B. How many steps do you usually climb per day; C. What means of transportation do you use; D. Do you practice physical activity (walking, running, Pilates, yoga, fighting, etc.); E. During leisure hours you … The highest percentage scores are identified with yellow highlight.
Table
Table 3. Results of WHOQOL-Old inventory by facet in percentages.
Table 3. Results of WHOQOL-Old inventory by facet in percentages.
ABCDEFG
Nothing54%0.1%30%0.4%2.3%0.9%0.1%
Little25.1%1.5%26.7%7.2%7.1%7.2%2.3%
More or Less13.5%7.4%31.3%35.9%26.1%27.1%11.5%
Much5.8%33.3%8.8%46.5%49.6%49.4%55.2%
Extremely1.6%57.7%3%10%14.9%15.4%30.9%
Mean80%88%68%80%68%68%79%
Caption: A. Loss of senses affects your life; B. Freedom to make one’s own decisions; C. Fear of dying; D. Able to do the things you would like; E. Opportunities to continue attaining achievements in life; F. Receive the recognition you deserve in life; G. Feeling love in life.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Figueira, H.A.; Figueira, O.A.; Corradi-Perini, C.; Martínez-Rodríguez, A.; Figueira, A.A.; da Silva, C.R.L.; Dantas, E.H.M. A Descriptive Analytical Study on Physical Activity and Quality of Life in Sustainable Aging. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5968. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115968

AMA Style

Figueira HA, Figueira OA, Corradi-Perini C, Martínez-Rodríguez A, Figueira AA, da Silva CRL, Dantas EHM. A Descriptive Analytical Study on Physical Activity and Quality of Life in Sustainable Aging. Sustainability. 2021; 13(11):5968. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115968

Chicago/Turabian Style

Figueira, Helena Andrade, Olivia Andrade Figueira, Carla Corradi-Perini, Alejandro Martínez-Rodríguez, Alan Andrade Figueira, Carlos Roberto Lyra da Silva, and Estelio Henrique Martin Dantas. 2021. "A Descriptive Analytical Study on Physical Activity and Quality of Life in Sustainable Aging" Sustainability 13, no. 11: 5968. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115968

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop