This cross-sectional descriptive-analytical study was done in 2018. A cluster multi-stage sampling method was used for this study. The statistical population of this study was older adults (over 60 years) living in urban areas of Qom, Iran. The study was approved by the Regional Research Ethics Committee of Qom University of Medical Sciences (no.: IR.MUQ.VCR.REC.1397.160).
To determine the sample size, according to the data of a previous study (
17), considering the standard deviation of 6.8 for the mental health status of the elderly and the confidence level of 95%, the sample size was estimated at 363 people. Considering the possibility of drop-out, a total of 400 people were enrolled. For sampling, 20 health community centers were selected randomly among 38 centers covered by the Qom University of Medical Sciences. The selected centers were equally located in four districts of the city. Finally, 20 people were selected from each center (n = 400 participants).
In order to comply with random sampling in the area covered by each health center, one home was considered in proportion to all five houses, and the questionnaire was completed.
If the house had no elderly, the next house was selected. The data collection was done during face-to-face interviews. The interviews were conducted with individuals over 60 years who were able to answer the questions. If necessary, the interviews were conducted in a combination form, in-person, or by phone call.
In this way, if the person was not present at home or did not have time for the interview, part of the interview (demographic profile) at the door was asked of him/her or other family members, and after receiving the person’s phone number, the rest of the questionnaire was asked and completed by phone by the person or his/her caregiver.
Before questionnaire completion, the purpose of the research was explained to participants, and they were assured that the questionnaire information would remain completely confidential.
To collect the demographic data, we used a demographic questionnaire containing 11 questions on economic and social variables, including age, sex, education, marital status, employment status, source of income, housing status, elderly caregivers, and insurance status.
The Kessler Psychological Distress scale (K6) and Psychological Well-Being questionnaire were used to assess the mental health status. The Kessler Psychological Distress scale (K6) was used to assess the anxiety and depression status of the elderly. The Kessler scale was adapted from the Australian Ministry of Health’s annual survey of “Annual Health Status survey, 2000”. The K6 test is a six-item questionnaire that asks questions on the level of anxiety and depression in the last four weeks concerning the feelings of anxiety, hopelessness, restlessness or fidget, depression, and the feeling that everything was futile and worthless. Answers were rated on a 5-point scale including “always”, “often”, “sometimes”, “rarely”, and “never”. The scores for the six questions were analyzed for each participant in the range of 6 to 30, followed by dividing the scores at three levels of “bad” (6 to 14), “moderate” (15 to 22), and “good” (23 to 30) (
18). The validity and reliability of the questionnaire were evaluated and confirmed according to similar studies from Iran (
19,
20). The reliability of this questionnaire was 0.87 based on Cronbach’s alpha.
To assess the psychological well-being, a five-item questionnaire was used that asked about the feeling of happiness and depression and the overall level of psychological well-being in the last four weeks. The feeling of well-being among the elderly was measured through questions about happiness, calm, peace, illness, loneliness, and depression in the last four weeks. Answers were scored at three levels in terms of positive emotions (happiness and relaxation) or negative emotions (illness, loneliness, and depression). Positive and negative emotions were scored on a scale of 3, “always”; 2, “sometimes”; and 1, “never”. The raw scores obtained from the five questions were in the range of 5 to 15 for each individual and they were divided into three levels of “good” (5 to 8), “moderate” (9 to 12), and “bad” (13 to 15) for psychological well-being (
18). The validity and reliability of the questionnaire were evaluated and approved according to a similar study in Iran (
19). The reliability of the standard psychological well-being scale based on Cronbach's alpha was 0.83. The mean, standard deviation, and frequency were used to describe the data and study variables. The
t-test and ANOVA were used for data analysis. Moreover, multiple linear regression was used to analyze the relationship of individual independent variables and socioeconomic variables with mental health status. Data were analyzed by Stata 12 software. The significance level was considered less than 0.05.