Cross-sectional study reveals gender influences satisfaction levels among disabled elderly inpatients, suggesting gender-sensitive care is needed.
Objective: This study aimed to investigate the independent effect of gender on patient satisfaction among disabled inpatients across various disease types and to identify the key factors influencing these satisfaction levels. Methods: A cross-sectional, multi-center study recruited 1,157 disabled inpatients from seven institutions. The measurements encompassed general characteristics (age, gender, height, weight, disease diagnosis, and functional impairment). Data were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with patient satisfaction, supplemented by stratified subgroup analyses across disease categories. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the predictive value of gender-specific factors. Results: This study investigated gender differences in satisfaction among disabled elderly inpatients with prevalent comorbidities, including neurologic (75.8%) and cardiovascular (75.3%) diseases. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that males were significantly less likely to report satisfaction compared to females (OR = 0.465, p = 0.018), a trend consistent across subgroup analyses for cardiovascular diseases (OR = 0.452, p = 0.042) and chronic geriatric diseases (OR = 0.389, p = 0.047). Neurologic disease subgroups showed marginal significance (OR = 0.536, p = 0.083). Conclusion: Gender is a significant determinant of satisfaction among disabled elderly residents, with males reporting lower satisfaction, particularly in cardiovascular and chronic geriatric departments. These findings underscore the necessity of transitioning from a “one-size-fits-all” model to gender-sensitive care. Implementing gender-tailored intervention strategies is essential to address psychosocial disparities and optimize patient-centered outcomes in long-term disability care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: