[[alternative]]The Relationship between Degree of Community Participation , Health Promotion Lifestyles and Quality of Life among the Healthy Community Elderly People

[[abstract]]本研究目的旨在了解，社區健康營造之老年人，其社區參與程度及健康促進生活方式對生活品質的相關性。 本研究採立意取樣方式，以居住台北市士林區，意識清楚、識字、或能以國台語表達之65歲以上、84歲以下的老人為主要研究對象，共計收案225人，進行橫斷性、描述性之相關研究。研究工具為結構式問卷，內容包括社會人口學資料、社區參與程度量表、健康促進生活方式量表及生活品質量表等四部份。研究資料以SPSS 10.0版套裝軟體進行描述性、相關性、差異性及複迴歸分析。 研究結果得到以下結論： 1. 研究對象之社區參與程度為「中度參與」（M＝2.2），在「出席」、「涉入」「控制」、「全心投入」四個層面中，又以「出席」（M＝2.5）層面為最高。 2. 研究對象健康促進生活方式以「營養」（M＝2.4）之分量表得分最高，「運動」（M＝1.1）最低，其中性別、經濟狀況、教育程度及自覺健康狀況，在整體健康促進生活方式得分上，皆有顯著差異。 3. 研究對象之社區參與程度、健康促進生活方式與生活品質，皆呈現顯著的正相關。 4. 在生活品質四大範疇中，以「環境」範疇之生活品質（M＝15.2）得分最高，「心理」範疇之生活品質（M＝14.4）得分最低。 5. 經複迴歸分析，本研究對象之生活品質，以「健康促進生活方式」對其影響力最大。 本研究之資料與結果，不僅可增進瞭解居住於辦理社區健康營造之社區老人，其社區參與程度及健康促進生活方式對生活品質之相關性，更可提供相關單位及健康專業人員更多的資訊，以發展措施協助老年人，使其能在社區中維持更健康及更有品質的生活。[[abstract]]The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships among the degree of community participation, health promotion lifestyles, and quality of life in a healthy community-based of elderly people.This study is a descriptive research with a purposive sample of 225 elderly people. Individuals were recruited from Shihlin district, Taipei, aged over 65 years and below 84 years, conscious clear, able to read written materials, and communicate with either Mandarin or Taiwanese. The subjects were measured by structural questionnaires on four rating scales that included demographic characteristics, community participation degree, health promotion lifestyles, and quality of life. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, Pearson’s correlation and multiple regression. The study derived several results as follow: 1.Elderly people had a middle level of community participation degree. And “presence” had the highest mark when compared with the levels of 「presence」, 「involvement」, 「control」,and 「fully involved」. 2.The best of subscale’s scoring in health promotion lifestyles was the 「nutrition」, and the worst was the 「exercise」. There were significant differences on overall health promotion lifestyles among subjects of different levels of gender, economic status, educational backgrounds, and self-perceived health status. 3.The degree of community participation and health promotion lifestyles showed a significant positive correlation with quality of life. 4.A statistical comparison of the scores on four domains related to quality of life revealed that 「Environmental」quality of life had the highest score, while 「Psychological」quality of life had the lowest. 5.Results from this study indicated that health promotion lifestyles had the greatest influence on quality of life. The results lent understanding to the factors that influence the degree of community participation, health promotion lifestyles, and quality of life among community elders. The findings of this study could provide guidance for associated organizations and health care professionals in the care of older people, which may facilitate the development of interventions, and enrichment of quality of life for community elders