Religiosity, Social Support, Perceived Stress, and Quality of Life Among Elderly Residing in Old Age Homes in Northern-Central India: A Cross-Sectional Study

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Dr. Sanjay Rana¹, Dr. Parth Singh Baghel², Prof. Dr. Dinesh Singh Rathore³, Prof. Dr. Anil Sisodia⁴, Dr. Sheetal Tripathi⁵, Dr. Tamanna Hooda⁶, Dr. Abhishek Gupta⁷

Abstract

Background: Mental health and overall wellbeing are essential components of healthy ageing. Older adults often experience social, emotional, and physical challenges that may increase perceived stress and negatively affect their quality of life. Religiosity and social support are known to provide emotional resilience and coping strength, yet their influence on mental health among elderly individuals, especially those residing in old age homes, remains underexplored in the Indian context. With changing family structures, increasing longevity, and rising dependence on institutional care, it becomes important to understand the factors that shape wellbeing in later life. This study investigates the relationship between religiosity, social support, perceived stress, and quality of life among elderly residents of old age homes from northern central India. Aim: To explore the relationship between religiosity, social support, perceived stress, and quality of life among elderly individuals living in old age homes. Methodology: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 150 elderly participants aged 60 years and above, selected through simple random sampling from old age homes. Data were collected using structured face-to-face interviews. Tools included demographic and sociocultural questionnaires, a self-rating religiosity scale, the Modified Social Support Scale (MSSS), the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-14), and the WHO Quality of Life (WHOQOL) questionnaire. Participants with psychiatric disorders or major cognitive impairments were excluded. Descriptive and inferential statistics were applied to analyze associations between psychosocial factors and quality of life. Results: The mean age of participants was 75.79 ± 8.84 years; 62% were males and 38% females. Most were married (73.34%), and 38% were illiterate. Urban and rural backgrounds were almost equally represented. Religiosity levels showed 46% with low, 37.3% with moderate, and 16.7% with high religiosity. Quality of life analysis revealed that 40% had good, 44.67% average, and 6.67% very good QOL, while 8.66% reported poor or very poor QOL. Perceived stress levels showed that 56.6% had low stress, 38% moderate, and 5.4% high stress. A significant association was found between perceived stress and QOL (Z = 12.387, p = 0.00001), with low-stress individuals reporting better wellbeing. Social support also showed a strong positive relationship with QOL (p = 0.00001); good QOL was highest among those with high social support (22%) and lowest among those with low support (10%). Demographic characteristics showed minor variations but were less strongly associated with QOL. Conclusion: The study highlights that perceived stress and social support are key determinants of quality of life among the elderly living in old age homes. Higher stress levels were linked to poorer wellbeing, while stronger social support significantly improved quality of life outcomes. These findings emphasize the need for stress-reduction programs, strengthening community and family support systems, and integrating spiritual or religious engagement to promote healthier ageing.


 


Keywords: Elderly, Perceived Stress, Religiosity, Social Support, Quality of Life, Mental Health, Old Age Homes


 

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

How to Cite
Dr. Sanjay Rana¹, Dr. Parth Singh Baghel², Prof. Dr. Dinesh Singh Rathore³, Prof. Dr. Anil Sisodia⁴, Dr. Sheetal Tripathi⁵, Dr. Tamanna Hooda⁶, Dr. Abhishek Gupta⁷. (2026). Religiosity, Social Support, Perceived Stress, and Quality of Life Among Elderly Residing in Old Age Homes in Northern-Central India: A Cross-Sectional Study. International Journal of Medical Science in Clinical Research & Review, 9(04), Page: 864–873. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21942136