Perception of Older Adults about the Safety and Convenience of Living at Home


  • Usasun Kortawat
  • Pimpan Silapasuwan
  • Dusit Sujirarut
  • Noppanun Nankongnab


Perceived safety, Convenience in housing, Home Environment, Aging.


Residential housing is a fundamental determinant of human well-being, although it has not
yet been evaluated or explored for safety and convenience. This was a cross-sectional study
to explore the factors related to perception of safety and convenience in the home of older
adults living in the community. It applied the frameworks of Maslow’s theory and Peterson’s
concepts. The sample was 100 participants living in the Bang Phlat district of Bangkok, selected
by multistage sampling. Data was collected using an interview survey, physical examination
and environmental assessment. Prior to use, the questionnaire was assessed by three experts.
Elements of perceived safety and convenience in housing at home of older adults had a
reliability of 0.856. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, Pearson’s Product Moment
Correlation, Independent Sample t-test, one-way ANOVA and multiple linear regression.
The results showed that 80% of the sample perceived safety and convenience in living
at home at a high level. The predictive factors of perceived safety and convenience of living
at home were marital status (married), medical privilege (social welfare), home environment,
and members of the family, with a significance of F = 6.454, p <0.001 or 29.4% (R2 = 0.294).
This study suggests that elderly people should have access to treatments and
improvements to their immediate housing environment which consider toilets, doors, and
stairs. At the same time, family members should help elders attain better safety and
convenience in their homes in the community.


Download data is not yet available.




How to Cite

Kortawat, U., Silapasuwan, P., Sujirarut, D., & Nankongnab, N. (2019). Perception of Older Adults about the Safety and Convenience of Living at Home. Journal of Public Health Nursing, 32(1), 77–96. Retrieved from



Research Articles