国际标准期刊号: 2161-0711

社区医学与健康教育

开放获取

我们集团组织了 3000 多个全球系列会议 每年在美国、欧洲和美国举办的活动亚洲得到 1000 多个科学协会的支持 并出版了 700+ 开放获取期刊包含超过50000名知名人士、知名科学家担任编委会成员。

开放获取期刊获得更多读者和引用
700 种期刊 15,000,000 名读者 每份期刊 获得 25,000 多名读者

索引于
  • 哥白尼索引
  • 谷歌学术
  • 夏尔巴·罗密欧
  • Genamics 期刊搜索
  • 安全点亮
  • 参考搜索
  • 哈姆达大学
  • 亚利桑那州EBSCO
  • OCLC-世界猫
  • 普布隆斯
  • 日内瓦医学教育与研究基金会
  • 欧洲酒吧
  • ICMJE
分享此页面

抽象的

Handling of Household Flammables by Elderly Dwelling in the Community: Executive Function and Judgment Involved in Handling Errors; The Kurihara Project

Ishikawa H, Takada J, Meguro K, Ouchi Y, Nakatsuka M and The Kurihara Project Members

Background: Handling errors with household flammables, such as pan burning, may result in serious accidents. In the previous study, we surveyed an actual status of handling errors with household flammables in the 590 older residents in Kurihara, northern Japan. The accidents were caused by a decrease in attention/executive function and the ability to predict risks. Methods: According to results of a questionnaire regarding the “frequency of small fire accidents at home” and “the presence or absence of pan burning”, 592 elderly people were divided into 2 groups, the “low-risk group” (no small fire accident, or <1 small fire accident but the absence of pan burning in a year and the “high-risk group” (<1 small fire accident but the presence of pan burning in a year, or frequent small fire accidents). For the neurobehavioral assessments, their memory, executive function, depressive state, and judgment were evaluated using WMSR Logical Memory-I/II, Trail Making Test A/B and Digit Symbol (DS), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), and the question regarding “fire” in Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI)-7, respectively. Results: The number of subjects with higher Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) score was greater in the high-risk group compared with the low-risk group. Two-way ANCOVA using the CDR scale and risk classification as the main effect, and using age, educational level, and MMSE scores as covariant, showed that the CDR effect and risk classification were observed in Logical Memory-I/II and DS, respectively. The subjects in the high-risk group were more likely not to answer the question about “fire” in CASI -7. Conclusion: Executive function and judgment may be more likely to be involved in handling errors with household flammables, compared with memory. The finding indicated that a scale specific to the handling of household flammables should be established.