The average age of the population was 70.19 years old. In terms of marital status, the highest proportion (71%) was related to married participants and the lowest proportion (0.7%) was related to those who had never married. More than 54% of the older adults were illiterate (unable to read or write). In terms of the family type, almost 58% were living in extended families and then nuclear families and living alone were in the second and third places in order.
According to the findings, in the case of needing medical emergency, the older adults were using different patterns to refer to the ED. The most popular way to reach medical services was referring with descendants (46.3%). The next common way was taxi (18%). Using EMS was in the third place with 17%, and the remaining used other ways. Interestingly, 32 people (3 percent) announced that they did not refer to any hospital in any case.
The relationship between EMS awareness and demographic variables was examined using Chi-square test. As shown in Table 1, the relationship between awareness and all of the variables including: gender, age, marital status, education, place of birth, kind of family, and household size was significant (p < 0.001).
Table 1. Awareness of EMS existence & Demographic variables of older people
|
Characteristics
|
Awareness of EMS existence
|
p-value*
|
Aware
n (%)
|
Unaware
n (%)
|
Total
n (%)
|
Gender
|
|
|
|
|
Male
|
326(63.4)
|
188(36.6)
|
514(48.0)
|
P<0.001
|
Female
|
246(44.2)
|
311(55.8)
|
548(52.0)
|
Age
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85-89
>=90
Marital Status
Never Married
A Married
Divorced
Widow/Widower
Education
Illiterate
Primary
Secondary
Higher education
Place of birth
Village
Town
Kind of Family
Extended
Nuclear
Loneliness
Other
Household Size
1
2
3-5
>=6
|
223(66.2)
117(57.4)
88(44.4)
84(51.9)
39(35.8)
15(35.7)
6(35.7)
4(57.1)
468(60.9)
3(20.0)
97(34.6)
213(36.5)
190(65.7)
107(81.7)
62(91.2)
255(46.1)
317(61.2)
341(55.0)
186(57.0)
43(35.2)
29(28.6)
44(36.1)
183(51.7)
307(61.9)
38(38.4)
|
114(33.8)
87(42.6)
110(55.6)
78(48.1)
70(64.3)
27(64.3)
13(64.3)
3(42.9)
301(39.1)
12(80.0)
183(65.4)
370(63.5)
99(34.3)
24(18.3)
6(8.8)
298(53.9)
201(38.8)
279(45.0)
136(42.2)
79(64.8)
5(71.4)
78(63.9)
171(48.3)
189(38.1)
61(61.6)
|
337(31.1)
204(0.19)
198(0.18)
162(0.15)
109(0.10)
42(0.04)
19(0.02)
7(0.01)
769(0.72)
15(0.01)
280(0.26)
583(0.55)
289(0.27)
131(0.12)
68(0.06)
553(0.52)
518(0.48)
620(0.58)
322(0.30)
122(0.11)
7(0.01)
122(0.12)
354(0.33)
496(0.46)
99(0.09)
|
P<0.001
P<0.001
P<0.001
P<0.001
P<0.001
P<0.001
|
EMS: Emergency Medical Services
* Chi square test
|
Table 2: distribution of EMS knowledge & history of use
|
|
Yes
n (%)
|
No
n (%)
|
Total
n (%)
|
Knowing the EMS phone number
Known about Free of EMS
Ability of dialing EMS
History of contact with EMS
|
356(62.2)
360(62.9)
410(71.7)
175(30.6)
|
216(37.8)
212(37.9)
162(28.3)
397(69.4)
|
572(100)
572(100)
572(100)
572(100)
|
EMS: Emergency Medical Services
|
About the familiarity with EMS, some significant findings were found. Only 572 (53%) of the older adults were aware of EMS and a considerable number of them were not aware of the terms of use and way of contact. Although using EMS among aware population was significantly higher than uninformed (79.5% vs. 20.5%; P < 0.001); less than one-third of aware people had the history of calling EMS.
As shown in Table 2, among the population who were aware of EMS, almost 38% were not aware of EMS phone number, 38% were not aware of the provided free services, and more than 28% could not use telephone independently to call EMS and request a service. The satisfaction rate with the arrival time and behavior of EMS personnel in population who had received service were 149 (85%) and 147 (84%), respectively.
Multiple logistic regression models were used to examine the association between some characteristics and the awareness of EMS. The adjusted model included age, gender, education, marital status, place of birth, kind of family, and household size. Findings showed that awareness of EMS among educated older adults was much higher than illiterates (65.7%, 81.7%, and 91.2% vs. 36.5%). The logistic regression models demonstrated that higher education increased awareness of EMS. As represented in Table 3, the primary, secondary, and higher education respectively increased the chance of awareness of EMS by more than two, four, and twelve times than illiteracy (OR = 2.53, OR = 4.69, and OR = 12.09).
Table 3: Logistic regression analysis of the relationship between awareness of EMS and risk variables in older adults
|
Variables
|
Awareness
|
OR
|
CI 95 %
|
P-value
|
Aware
|
Unaware
|
Gender
Male
Female
|
326
246
|
188
311
|
1.00
0.75
|
0.54-1.03
|
0.08
|
Age
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85-89
>=90
|
223
117
88
84
39
15
6
|
114
87
110
78
70
27
13
|
1.00
0.64
0.44
0.73
0.48
0.42
0.46
|
0.43-0.95
0.29-0.66
0.47-1.13
0.28-0.81
0.19-0.89
0.15-1.37
|
0.030
<0.001
0.163
0.006
0.023
0.165
|
Marital Status
Never Married
A Married
Divorced
Widow/Widower
|
4
468
3
97
|
3
301
12
183
|
1.00
0.64
0.12
0.42
|
0.12-3.21
0.01-1.08
0.08-2.08
|
0.591
0.060
0.291
|
Education
Illiterate
Primary
Secondary
Higher education
|
213
190
107
62
|
370
99
24
6
|
1.00
2.53
4.69
12.09
|
1.81-3.52
2.79-7.91
4.88-29.94
|
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
|
Place of birth
Village
Town
|
255
317
|
298
201
|
1.00
1.21
|
0.90-1.62
|
0.196
|
Kind of Family
Extended
Nuclear
Loneliness
Other
|
341
186
43
2
|
279
136
79
5
|
1.00
1.18
1.10
0.63
|
0.72-1.92
0.38-3.18
0.10-3.99
|
0.502
0.850
0.628
|
Number of Family
1
2
3-5
>=6
|
44
183
307
38
|
78
171
189
61
|
1.00
0.94
1.38
0.75
|
0.30-2.90
0.48-3.99
0.23-2.37
|
0.923
0.543
0.628
|
EMS: Emergency Medical Services
OR: Odds ratio
CI: Confidence Interval
The OR represents each unit increase in the variable.
|