老人餘暇福祉施設의 利用實態와 滿足度에 관한 硏究

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 논문은 구미시 노인들의 노인여가복지시설 이용실태와 이용만족도에 관한 연구로서 연구결과를 살펴보면 다음과 같다.
첫째, 조사대상자의 노인여가복지시설유형에 따른 성별 분포는 경로당이용의 경우 남성이 37.5%, 여성이 62.5%이며, 노인복지회관이용의 경우 남성이 44%, 여성이 56%로 나타났으며, 젊은 시절 주로 농․축산업에 종사하였다. 연구대상자의 이용시설유형에 따른 월 지출용돈은 경로당 이용 노인의 경우 10-20만원이 54%, 20만원 이상이 44%로 나타났으며, 노인복지회관이용 노인의 경우 10-20만원이 38.8%, 5-10만원이 37.9%, 5만원 미만이 10.3%순으로 나타났다.
둘째, 노인여가복지시설유형별 여가활동유형을 살펴보면 경로당에서는 주로 화투놀이나 담소 등이 주를 이루고 특별한 여가활동프로그램은 없는 것으로 나타났으며, 기대하는 경로당의 역할은 친교와 대화의 장소, 기대하는 프로그램은 운동기구를 이용한 체력보강프로그램으로 나타났다. 노인복지회관이용 노인들은 TV시청과 취미활동 등을 주로 하는 것으로 나타났으며, 기대하는 노인복지회관의 역할은 건강체조 등 건강증진프로그램을 제공하는 것이었다.
셋째, 경로당 이용자들의 만족도를 조사한 결과 비교적 낮게 나타났으며, 불만족 이유로 여가 및 프로그램부재 등을 꼽았으며, 보다 다양한 프로그램들이 제공되는 노인복지회관을 이용하지 않는 이유로는 이동거리가 멀어서라고 응답했다. 노인복지회관이용자들의 만족도는 경로당이용자들보다 높게 나왔으며, 취미활동프로그램이 더욱 다양화되고 활성화되는 것을 기대하고 있었다.
넷째, 노인여가복지시설유형별 고독감과 소외감을 느끼는 정도의 조사에서는 경로당이용자들이 노인복지회관이용자들보다 고독함과 소외감을 더 느끼는 것으로 나타났다. 또한, 다수의 노인들이 노인여가복지시설참여의 어려움으로 거주인근에 시설이 부재하고, 기존시설로의 접근성이 좋지 않기 때문이라고 하였다. 또한 조사대상노인들의 다수가 여가활동을 위한 준비가 없는 것으로 나타났다.
조사결과를 종합하면, 노인들의 다수가 건강증진프로그램 등 여가활동프로그램의 다양화와 여가복지시설에로의 용이한 접근성을 기대하고 있는 것으로 나타났다. 따라서 노인들의 여가활동참여욕구에 부합하는 노인여가복지서비스를 활성화하기 위해서는 노인여가복지시설의 확대를 통해 여가시설에로의 접근성을 용이하도록 하고, 여가활동프로그램의 다양화, 활성화 및 안정적 공급이 우선되어야 할 것이다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study conducted an investigative analysis of current senior community centers (gyeongnodang) and welfare centers for seniors according to their gender, age, educational background, living expenses, pocket money, loneliness and sense of isolation according to their health conditions, frequency of going out, and leisure activities, and the results include the following.
First, out of the research subjects, there were more males than females and more users of senior community centers than users of welfare centers for seniors. As to the age of the users of senior community centers, it ranged from 65-69. Concerning marital status, they had spouses in most cases. With regard to educational background, they were mostly middle school graduates. For their residential types, they mostly lived in apartment complexes, and for cohabitation type, only old couples lived in homes. As to their pocket money, they spent 100,000-200,000 won and it was discovered that money mostly was used for staple foods and side dishes. Regarding the users of welfare centers for seniors, their age ranged from 70-74, and as to their marital status, they were mostly bereaved of their spouses. Also, concerning their educational background, they were middle school graduates, and their occupation was mainly homemakers. Also, many of them lived in apartment complexes with their siblings. In addition, they spent 100,000-200,000 won as pocket money mainly for staple foods and side dishes.
Second, in a comparison of the current use between the elderly using senior community centers and the elderly using welfare centers for seniors, as to senior community centers, the distance was within 10 minutes on foot, and the reason for use was due to proximity. As to the frequency of use, they used the centers frequently and used them for 3-4 hours, in most cases. What they did mostly was hwatu (gambling card play). Concerning participation in a program, they were shown as not having participated in a program. Regarding the role expected in senior community centers, it was discovered that friendship and conversation were most expected, and expected programs were discovered to be fitness and the reinforcement of physical strength. With regard to the elderly using welfare centers for seniors, the distance was within 10 minutes, and the reason for use was because of proximity. As to the frequency of use, they used the welfare centers once every other day for 3-4 hours. Their main activities involved watching TV and leisure activities. The expected role of the welfare centers was for a health workout, and their expected program was leisure activities.
Third, concerning satisfaction with the use of senior community centers, it was not high and the users pointed out the lack of leisure activities and programs as being unsatisfactory. The reason they did not use welfare centers for seniors was because of the long distance. The expected role in welfare centers for seniors was the health workout, and their expected program was leisure activities.
Fourth, regarding loneliness and the sense of isolation, they were higher among the elderly using senior community centers, and the elderly using welfare centers for seniors went out more frequently. As to satisfaction with the use of facilities for seniors, it was higher among the elderly using senior community centers and for expenses for leisure activities; they were also higher among the elderly using senior community centers. With regard to the difficulty which undermines their participation was the lack of facilities. Overall, the research subjects were found not to have been prepared for leisure activities. Regarding their expected program, whereas the elderly using senior community centers expected health-related activities, the elderly using welfare centers for seniors expected creative activities.
Given the above results, it would be necessary to make a more concerted effort to meet the desire of the elderly through the specialization and diversification of leisure activity programs according to the type of use of senior facilities by the elderly. In particular, the current use and satisfaction of the elderly using welfare centers for seniors and senior community centers in the Gumi area should go through a verification process with diverse types of comparisons. However, in the comparison in relation to this study, senior community centers were valuable as a facility that was good to spend time at, and welfare centers for seniors satisfied the desire of participation by the elderly. Although the two types of facilities were different in terms of an advancement pattern, their existential value was obvious. In order to provide a consistent supply of leisure activity programs for seniors as well as leisure and welfare facilities for seniors in promoting leisure activities for among the elderly, it is required to develop a research tool in follow-up research.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론 1
• 1. 연구의 필요성 및 목적 1
• 2. 연구문제 2
• 3. 연구범위 및 한계 3
• Ⅱ. 이론적 배경 4
• 1. 노인복지시설 4
• 2. 노인여가복지시설유형 및 현황 8
• 3. 연구대상 노인여가복지시설에 관한 고찰 11
• 4. 선행연구에 관한 고찰 20
• Ⅲ. 조사방법 25
• 1. 조사대상, 설문지 구성 및 자료의 수집 25
• 2. 측정도구 및 분석방법 27
• IV. 조사결과 및 분석
• 1. 연구대상자의 일반적 특성 28
• 2. 연구대상자의 경로당 이용실태 34
• 3. 연구대상자의 노인복지회관 이용실태 43
• 4. 노인시설 이용 유형에 따른 여가활동관련 분석 49
• Ⅴ. 결론 58
• 1. 연구결과 요약 58
• 2. 발전방안에 대한 제언 59
• 참고문헌 61
• 부록 설문지 64
• ABSTRACT 73