Landeros OEA, Gallegos CEC

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 20-24
PDF size: 71.75 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this research was to identify if the self-care agency, as well as the perceived health state, were different between obese and not obese subjects. The design was descriptive, correlational; a randomized sample was recruited from a census track in Mexico City. Sample size was 128, determined for a mean difference with a power of 85%, p ≤ .05, medium size effect. Measures included weight, height and two papers and pencil questionnaires (Self-Care Agency Scale, and MOS short form). The final sample included 67% of women. The mean for age and years of education was 36.92 (SD 11.06), and 9.1 (SD 4.9), respectively. Thirty four percent expressed having at least one relative with hypertension, and 48% with diabetes mellitus. Six percent of the interviewed participants were diabetic, and 12% having hypertension. Thirty three percent was classified as obese according to the Mexican Norm. The self-care agency, and the perceived health state mean scores (measured on scales 0-100), were 54.4 (SD 10.89), and 69.94 (SD 17.25) respectively. The inferential analysis showed: 1) The perceives health state explained 8.8% of the observed variation of the self-care agency (F[1,128] = 13.2 y p ≤ .001). The findings showed that the self-care agency and the perceived health state were not different on obese and not obese participants.

REFERENCES

1. Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática (INEGI). México: 1999.

2. Secretaría de Salud. Encuesta Nacional de Enfermedades Crónicas. México: Dirección General de Epidemiología 1996.

3. Lerman GI. Atención integral del paciente diabético. 2° ed. México: McGraw-Hill Interamericana; 1994.

4. McMichael AJ. La salud y el entorno urbano en un mundo cada vez más globalizado: problemas para los países en desarrollo. Organización Mundial de la Salud 2001.

5. Orem DE. Nursing concepts of practice. 6° ed. USA: Mosby; 2001.

6. Lukkarien H, Hentinen M. Self-care agency and factors related to this agency among patients with coronary heart disease. International Journal of Nursing Studies 1999; 34: 295-04.

7. Gallegos E. Valoración de las capacidades de autocuidado. Desarrollo Científico de Enfermería 1998; 6: 260-6.

8. Gallegos E, Cardenas V, Salas M. Capacidades de autocuidado en pacientes con diabetes tipo 2. Investigación y Educación en Enfermería 1998; 17: 13-27.

9. Polit FD, Hungler PB. Investigación científica en ciencias de la salud. 6° ed. México: McGraw-Hill Interamericana; 1999.

10. Elashoff JD. Query Advisor. Version 2.0. User´s Guide. Los Angeles, Dixon Associates; 1997.

11. Ware JE. Users of the medical outcome study (MOS) 20-item short-form health survey (SF-20). 1989.

12. Secretaría de Salud (SS). Norma Oficial Mexicana para el manejo integral de la obesidad NOM-174-SSA1-1998. México 2001.

13. Bañuelos BP, Gallegos CE. Autocuidado y control de adultos mayores con diabetes. Desarrollo Científico en Enfermería 2001; 9(4): 100-6.

14. González C, Stern M. La obesidad como factor de riesgo cardiovascular en México. Estudio en población abierta. Investigación Clínica 1993; 45: 13-21.

15. Chávez R. Factores de riesgo lipídicos. Pautas en Cardiología Preventiva 2002; 2: 6.

16. Ludvick B, Nolan J, Baloga J, Sacks D, Olefsky J. Effect of obesity on insulin resistance in normal subjects and patients with diabetes mellitus. American Diabetes Association 1995; 9: 1121-25.

17. Carey D, Jenkins A, Campell L, Freund J, Chrisholm D. Abdominal fat and insulin resistance in normal and overweigth women: direct measurement reveal a strong relationships in subjects at both low and high risk of diabetes mellitus. American Diabetes Association 1996; 45(5): 633-8.