老人定點用餐服務現況及參與用餐者之自評效益－以台北市為例

Current status of congregate meal services for elderly people and self-perceived benefits of the participants by using Taipei City as an example

10.6288/TJPH.201902_38(1).107070

王映捷(YING-CHIEH WANG)；陳雅美(YA-MEI CHEN)；李玉春(YUE-CHUNE LEE)；楊銘欽(MING-CHIN YANG)

定點用餐服務 ； 老人 ； 參與效益 ； 多階層分析 ； congregate meal service ； elderly ； the effectiveness of participation ； Hierarchical Linear Models

台灣公共衛生雜誌

38卷1期（2019 / 02 / 22）

67 - 80

繁體中文

目標：本研究旨在了解台北市老人定點用餐服務之現況，並探討參與定點用餐服務對於老人之效益及其相關因素。方法：本研究為橫斷式研究，研究對象包括服務提供者與使用者，抽樣方法為分層等比例群集抽樣，採用面對面訪問，以自行發展的結構式問卷為測量工具，進行資料蒐集，並以多階層線性分析模型進行分析。結果：總計回收有效問卷，在服務提供者為35份（回收率94.6%），在服務使用者為613份（回收率69.6%）。結果顯示，89%的據點每週提供服務的日數為3天以下；使用者參與定點用餐自覺效益在心理及社會面向高於生理面向；高度參與頻率者的自評效益分數顯著高於低度參與者（心理及社會面向p＜0.01）；每週提供定點用餐服務日數為「三次以上」的單位之服務使用者的參與效益較高（心理及社會面向p＜0.05）。結論：參與頻率、據點每週提供定點用餐服務之日數與使用者感受效益具有相關性。然台北市定點用餐提供的日數多為2至3天。建議政府持續輔導與補助定點用餐服務據點，以每週提供五天服務為努力目標，增加老人參與服務的機會。

Objectives: To investigate the status of congregate meal services and understand the benefits of participation on congregate meal services and the associated factors. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study. The participants were the providers and users at congregate meal service sites. We collected data by using stratified proportionate cluster sampling and face-to-face interviews using self-developed structured questionnaire as a tool. Hierarchical linear models were used to identify factors associated with participation. Results: We obtained questionnaire responses from 35 provider (response rate, 94.6%) and 613 user questionnaire (response rate, 69.6%); 89% sites provided services less than 3 days per week. The average scores of self-perceived benefits of users on psychological and social dimensions were higher than the physiological dimensions. Those with higher participation frequency had higher self-perceived benefit scores. In addition, users at the sites providing services more than 3 days per week had higher self-perceived benefit scores. Conclusions: The frequency of participation and that of providing congregate meal services per week are associated with participation benefits. We suggest that Taiwan government to encourage and subsidize congregate meal service sites to increase the service frequency to up to 5 days a week and thus improve the self-perceived benefits of the users.

1. 王仕圖, ST(2013)。非營利組織在社區照顧服務的協調合作：以社區照顧關懷據點為例。台大社會工作學刊，27，185-228。
   連結：
2. 溫福星, FH,邱皓政, HJ(2009)。多層次模型方法論：階層線性模式的關鍵議題與試解。台大管理論叢，19，263-293。
   連結：
3. Boyer, K,Orpin, P,King, AC(2016).‘Icome fo the friendship’: why social eating matters.Australas J Ageing,35,E29-E31.
4. Campbell, A, D,Godfryd, A,Buys, DR,Locher, JL(2015).Does participation in home-delivered meals programs improve outcomes for older adults? Results of a systematic review.J Nutr Gerontol Geriatr,34,124-167.
5. Gitelson, R,Ho, CH,Fitzpatrick, T,Case, A,McCabe, J(2008).The impact of senior centers on participants in congregate meal programs.J Park Recreation Admin,26,136-151.
6. Heuberger, R,Wong, H(2014).The association between depression and widowhood and nutritional status in older adults.Geriatr Nurs,35,428-433.
7. Keller, HH(2006).Meal programs improve nutritional risk: a longitudinal analysis of community-living seniors.J Am Diet Assoc,106,1042-1048.
8. Kirk, AB,Waldrop, DP,Rittner, BA(2001).More than a meal: the relationship between social support and quality of life in daytime meal program participants.J Gerontol Soc Work,35,3-20.
9. Mabli, J,Gearan, E,Cohen, R(2017).Evaluation of the Effect of the Older Americans Act Title III-C Nutrition Services Program on Participants’ Food Security, Socialization, and Diet Quality.Washington, DC:Administration for Community Living, US Department of Health and Human Services.
10. Ponza, M,Ohls, JC,Millen, BE(1996).Serving Elders at Risk: The Older Americans Act Nutrition Programs: National Evaluation of the Elderly Nutrition Program, 1993-1995.Washington, DC:Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aging, US Department of Health and Human Services.
11. Porter Starr, KN,McDonald, SR,Bales, CW(2015).Nutritional vulnerability in older adults: a continuum of concerns.Curr Nutr Rep,4,176-184.
12. Thomas, L,Ghiselli, R,Almanza, B(2011).Congregate meal sites participants: can they manage their diets?.Int J Hosp Manag,30,31-37.
13. Wacker, RR,Roberto, KA(2013).Community Resources for Older Adults: Programs and Services in an Era of Change.Newbury Park, California:Sage Publications.
14. Weddle, D,Wilson, FL,Berkshire, SD,Heuberger, R(2012).Evaluating nutrition risk factors and other determinants of use of an urban congregate meal program by older African Americans.J Nutr Gerontol Geriatr,31,38-58.
15. Wellman, NS,Rosenzweig, LY,Lloyd, JL.(2002).Thirty years of the older Americans nutrition program.J Acad Nutr Diet,102,348-350.
16. 台北市政府社會局：老人活動據點方案實施計畫廢止（併入社區照顧關懷據點）。https://dosw.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=63FBD779B8854D69&sms=295D027C70146365&s=F87F291831CB7B57。引用2018/08/09。 Department of Social Welfare, Taipei City Government. Abolishment of the older adult activity center implementation project (now merged into community care centers). Available at: https://dosw.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=63FBD779B8854D69&sms=295D027C70146365&s=F87F291831CB7B57. Accessed August 9, 2018. [In Chinese]
17. 台北市政府社會局：社區照顧關懷據點方案。https://dosw.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=63FBD779B8854D69&sms=295D027C70146365&s=37E072F14E4F64FE。引用2018/08/09。 Department of Social Welfare, Taipei City Government. Community care center program. Available at: https://dosw.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=63FBD779B8854D69&sms=295D027C70146365&s=37E072F14E4F64FE. Accessed August 9, 2018. [In Chinese]
18. 呂寶靜, PC(2012).老人福利服務.台北=Taipei:五南=Wu-Nan Book Inc.
19. 呂寶靜, PC(2012)。,台北=Taipei:科技部=Ministry of Science and Technology。
20. 林明莉, ML(2015)。台北=Taipei，政治大學社會工作研究所=Graduate Institute of Social Work, National Chengchi University。
21. 林萬億, WI(2006).台灣的社會福利：歷史經驗與制度分析.台北=Taipei:五南=Wu-Nan Book Inc.
22. 柯涵儀, HI(2014)。社區照顧關懷據點實施成效評估─以南部某縣市為例。台灣老年學論壇，22，1-16。
23. 國家發展委員會, R.O.C. (Taiwan)(2016).中華民國人口推估（105年至150年）.台北=Taipei:國家發展委員會人力發展處=Department of Human Resources Development.
24. 潘承揚, CY(2015)。台北=Taipei，政治大學社會工作研究所=Graduate Institute of Social Work, National Chengchi University。