Skip to main content

Table 3 Variables by concern about the wellbeing of a close one (%) during the visiting ban

From: COVID-19 related visiting ban in nursing homes as a source of concern for residents’ family members: a cross sectional study

 

No concern

Remained similar

Decreased

Increased to some extent

Increased notably

P-value

Background information

 Age group, n = 352

   < 40

8.8

5.9

2.9

44.1

38.2

.670

  40–49

3.6

8.9

1.8

35.7

50.0

  50–59

5.6

13.6

0.0

39.2

41.6

  60–69

5.3

13.7

4.2

36.8

40.0

  70 + 

2.4

21.4

2.4

35.7

38.1

 Gender, n = 364

  Female

5.0

12.1

1.5

37.5

44.0

.058

  Male

7.3

24.4

4.9

36.6

26.8

 Relation to person living in a nursing home, n = 366

  Spouse

2.6

13.2

2.6

31.6

50.0

.855

  Child

5.3

13.6

2.1

35.8

43.2

  Sibling

0.0

28.6

0.0

35.7

35.7

  Grandchild

7.4

11.1

0.0

59.3

22.2

  Child-in-law

7.1

7.1

0.0

42.9

42.9

  Other

6.7

13.3

3.3

36.7

40.0

 Length of residence in a nursing home, n = 366

   < 3 months

2.9

22.9

8.6

17.1

48.6

.028

  3–6 months

7.7

5.1

5.1

46.2

35.9

  6 months – 1 year

9.1

18.2

0.0

34.1

38.6

  1–2 years

6.3

10.0

0.0

37.5

46.3

   > 2 years

3.6

14.3

1.2

40.5

40.5

 Distance from the nursing home, n = 366

   < 5 km

4.0

12.1

1.6

37.1

45.2

.597

  5–20 km

6.0

18.8

2.6

32.5

40.2

   > 20 km

5.6

10.4

1.6

42.4

40.0

Before the visiting ban

 Frequency of visits to the nursing home, n = 359

  Almost every day

3.9

11.8

2.0

19.6

62.7

.012

  At least twice a week

5.8

11.6

0.0

39.5

43.0

  About once a week

2.8

16.7

2.8

39.8

38.0

  Every second week

9.4

15.1

0.0

32.1

43.4

  Once a month

4.9

14.6

0.0

56.1

24.4

  Less than once a month

10.0

5.0

10.0

45.0

30.0

 Happy with the frequency of visits before the visiting ban, n = 357

  Yes

4.6

15.1

0.7

38.0

41.5

.122

  Too often

33.3

0.0

0.0

33.3

33.3

  Too rarely

7.2

8.7

4.3

39.1

40.6

 So concerned about the wellbeing of a close one that their wellbeing had deteriorated before the visiting ban, n = 363

  Yes

2.5

8.6

4.9

33.3

50.6

.025

  No

6.0

15.2

1.1

39.0

38.7

During the visiting ban

 Enough contacts during the visiting ban, n = 365

  Yes

14.0

30.2

4.7

40.7

10.5

 < .001

  No

2.5

8.6

1.1

36.2

51.6

 Noticed changes in the wellbeing of a close one, n = 357

  Yes

2.2

6.2

2.2

34.2

55.1

 < .001

  No

10.6

27.3

1.5

43.2

17.4

 Received enough information on the wellbeing of a close one, n = 352

  Yes

6.8

19.6

2.6

40.9

30.2

 < .001

  No

1.7

3.4

0.9

29.1

65.0

 Safety, n = 352

  Yes

7.8

21.8

2.4

42.7

25.2

 < .001

  No

0.7

3.4

1.4

29.5

65.1

 Daily life, n = 355

  Yes

8.4

22.0

2.1

42.4

25.1

 < .001

  No

0.6

4.9

1.8

30.5

62.2

 Possibilities to keep in touch, n = 355

  Yes

7.2

21.2

1.9

38.5

31.3

 < .001

  No

2.0

4.1

2.0

34.0

57.8

 Changes in daily life, n = 350

  Yes

9.1

22.7

1.9

39.6

26.6

 < .001

  No

1.5

6.6

2.0

34.2

55.6

 

 Sum variable: enough information, n = 343

  For 4–5 issues

8.8

26.5

2.0

38.8

23.8

 < .001

  For 0–3 issues

1.5

4.6

2.0

35.7

56.1

 So concerned about the wellbeing of the close one that their own wellbeing had deteriorated during the visiting ban, n = 364

  Yes

1.2

2.4

0.6

26.5

69.4

 < .001

  No

8.8

23.7

3.1

47.4

17.0

 Visiting restrictions are the right solution, n = 360

  Agree

8.1

20.7

1.5

47.0

22.7

 < .001

  Do not agree

1.9

5.6

2.5

24.7

65.4

  1. P-values for Chi square tests; missing observations excluded from the analyses