Improving Social Quality in Housing Complexes for Older Adults: Professional Support as a Necessary Condition

Figures & data

Table 1. Complexes selected for the qualitative study.

Complex	Baseline picture of the social quality	Involvement of professional
1	Relatively negative	Active participation
2	Rather negative/gloomy	Active participation
3	Relatively positive	Following the experiment at a distance
4	Mixed positive/negative	Active participation

Table 2. Differences between the baseline and follow-up measurements for participants of both measurements on central scales and effect variables¹.

	Baseline measurement		Follow-up measurement
	M	SD	M	SD	p	N
Scale (range)*
Quality of life (0–2) (α = 0.85; 4 items)	1.59	0.46	1.66	0.46	0.02	138
Meaningfulness (1–5)* (α = 0.69; 7 items)	3.73	0.51	3.72	0.52	0.81	148
Self-reliance (0–2)** (α = 0.82; 8 items)	1.51	0.41	1.53	0.57	0.43	149
Appreciation of social contacts in the residential complex (1–5)*** (α = 0.75; 5 items)	3.66	0.59	3.70	0.55	0.46	135
Variable (range)
Loneliness (1–4)	1.36	0.59	1.33	0.63	0.52	156
Grade on general social contacts (1–10)	7.60	1.1	7.45	1.3	0.32	142
Daily or more frequent personal contact with neighbors in residential complex (portion)	0.69	0.46	0.62	0.49	0.05	155
Participation in an organized activity in the residential complex (proportion)	0.65	0.48	0.72	0.45	0.04	152
Grade of activities in the residential complex (1–10)	7.30	1.34	7.30	1.27	0.81	126

Note. Scores range from low/none to high/a lot. On some items participants score are marginally significantly lower/higher: *marginally lower on “I have clear goals in my life” (M = 3.88 versus M = 3.73, n = 147, p = 0.06); **marginally higher on “I approach everything and everyone easily” (M = 1.21 versus M = 1.31, n = 157, p = 0.06); ***marginally higher on “The people in my residential complex can generally get along well with each other” (M = 3.63 versus M = 3.78, n = 138, p = 0.07).