Community centers for older adults and psychosocial factors: Evidence from the German Ageing Survey
Abstract
Introduction
There is a dearth of studies examining the association between the use of community centers for older adults and psychosocial factors. Thus, our aim was to examine the association between the use of community centers for older adults and psychosocial factors (in terms of loneliness, perceived social isolation, and life satisfaction; also stratified by sex)—which is important for successful aging.
Methods/Design
Data were taken from a nationally representative sample—the German Ageing Survey—including older community-dwelling individuals. The De Jong Gierveld tool was used to measure loneliness, the Bude and Lantermann tool was used to measure perceived social isolation, and the Satisfaction with Life Scale was used to quantify life satisfaction. Multiple linear regressions were used to evaluate the hypothesized associations.
Results
In the analytical sample, n equaled 3246 individuals (mean age was 75 years, 65–97 years). After adjusting for various socioeconomic, lifestyle-related, and health-related covariates, multiple linear regressions showed that the use of community centers was associated with higher life satisfaction among men (β = 0.12, p < 0.01), but not women. The use of community centers was not associated with loneliness or perceived social isolation for either gender.
Conclusions
The use of community centers was positively associated with satisfaction with one's own life among male older adults. Thus, encouraging older men to use such services may be beneficial. This quantitative study provides an initial basis for further research in this neglected area. For example, longitudinal studies are required to confirm our present findings.
1 INTRODUCTION
In old age, various negative life events take place such as the loss of relatives/friends or health deterioration. Such factors are associated with adverse psychosocial outcomes such as high levels of loneliness and perceived social isolation as well as lower levels of life satisfaction. Thus, loneliness (perceived discrepancy between actual and desired social relations) and perceived social isolation (feeling that one does not belong to the society)—both, also called “geriatric giants” are frequent and pressing issues in later life.1 They can contribute to perceived longevity,2, 3 chronic conditions, and mortality.4-6 Expectations of longevity refer to the subjective perception of one's own longevity—and are also known as subjective life expectancy or death distance.7 Similarly, life satisfaction (which reflects the cognitive evaluation of life as a whole) and is key for successful aging.8
Recent systematic reviews clarified the determinants of loneliness, social isolation, and life satisfaction among older adults. For example, it has been shown that rather “classical” sociodemographic factors such as being married were associated with lower levels of loneliness and social isolation.9, 10 Recent studies also demonstrated an association between other factors (e.g., pet ownership, obesity, oral health or income poverty) and loneliness as well as social isolation.11-14 Equally, the determinants of life satisfaction among older adults have been clarified such as health-related factors.15 However, thus far, there is a dearth of quantitative studies examining the association between the use of community centers for older adults and loneliness, social isolation, and life satisfaction.
Community centers reflect meeting places for older adults such as “Senior Cafés” or “multigenerational houses” in Germany where older adults can, for example, read books to children during the day—to support fatigued parents. In return, adolescents or young adults can help older adults when they have problems with modern technologies such as notebooks or smartphones.
The very few existing studies in this area are based on qualitative data and are, therefore, difficult to generalize to general populations of older adults. For example, a prior qualitative study showed that individuals were motivated to participate in an intergenerational community-based arts initiatives in Sweden to increase social activities - to counteract feelings of loneliness.16 We also speculatively assume that the use of community centers for older adults is associated with factors such as purpose in life or can increase self-esteem. Moreover, we assume that the use of community centers for older adults can increase feelings of social embeddedness and can contribute to increased social activities.
Our aim was to examine the association between use of community centers for older adults (also stratified by sex) and psychosocial factors (in terms of loneliness, perceived social isolation, and life satisfaction). We hypothesize that use of community centers was associated with lower levels of social isolation and loneliness and higher levels of life satisfaction. Since older women are more often involved in (private) social activities than older men,17-19 we assume that the aforementioned associations are particularly pronounced in men.
Such knowledge is important to address individuals at risk for unfavorable psychosocial factors. Moreover, such knowledge can assist in clarifying how the general use of community centers can contribute to loneliness, perceived social isolation and general life satisfaction. This can serve as an initial basis for upcoming quantitative studies in this research area.
2 METHODS
2.1 Sample
Data were used from wave six of a nationally representative sample which covers community-dwelling individuals aged 43 years and over (German Ageing Survey, also called: DEAS). This excludes younger individuals and individuals living in institutionalized settings. For panel participants, inclusion criteria were: at least one valid interview before, written consent and still being alive and not living abroad. The DEAS study began in 1996 and is funded by the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women, and Youth (BMFSFJ). Further waves took place in 2002 (wave 2), 2008 (wave 3), 2011 (wave 4), 2014 (wave 5), 2017 (wave 6), mid-2020 (wave 7, special corona-survey) and 2020/2021 (wave 8). A national probability sampling was used to recruit individuals. The DEAS study includes various topics which are of relevance in the second half of life (e.g., health, retirement, satisfaction with aging, family life, well-being in general, loneliness and so on). First, individuals are interviewed in the DEAS study. The interviewers were trained using a detailed manual. After finishing the interview, individuals could fill out an additional questionnaire which covers more sensitive topics such as loneliness. In wave 6, about 85% of the individuals who took part in the interview additionally filled out the questionnaire.
Every 6 years (i.e., year 2002, year 2008 and year 2014), new baseline samples were introduced in the DEAS study. Moreover, pure panel surveys (i.e., only including who already participated before) were performed in 2011, 2017 and 2020/2021 (due to the pandemic).
In wave 6, the response rate was about 63%. The key reason for non-participation was the general refusal to participate. The likelihood of participation in wave 6 was positively associated with younger age, being female, higher educational level and better self-rated health. Moreover, average interview duration was about 1.5 h. Further details regarding the DEAS study are provided by Klaus et al.20
In our current study, we used data from the most recent study prior to the pandemic (wave 6, year 2017). We restricted our sample to individuals aged 65 years and above. It is worth noting that we did not use data which were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic because various community centers were difficult to reach or closed in this period.
Written informed consent was provided by all participants prior to the interview. An ethical approval was not obtained because the criteria for the need of an ethical statement were not met (risk for the respondents, lack of information about the aims of the study, clinical examination of patients). The DEAS study is in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration.
2.2 Dependent variables
Loneliness was assessed using the De Jong Gierveld loneliness tool.21 This tool has six items (each item has four levels; e.g., “I often feel rejected”). An average score was created (from 1 to 4, with higher scores corresponding to higher loneliness). It is a widely used tool with very good psychometric characteristics.21 Cronbach's alpha was 0.83 (McDonald's omega: 0.84) in our study.
Perceived social isolation was used as second outcome. It was measured using a tool created by Bude and Lantermann22—which consists of four items (one example: “I feel like I do not really belong to society.”). Each of the four items has four levels. By averaging all four items, the final score was created. The final score ranges from 1 to 4, whereby higher scores indicate a higher perceived social isolation. In this study, Cronbach's alpha was 0.87 (McDonald's omega: 0.88).
Furthermore, life satisfaction was quantified using the Satisfaction with Life Scale.23 It consists of five items (each ranging from 1 to 5; for example: “I am satisfied with my life.”). The items were averaged to build a final score. The final score ranges from 1 to 5, with higher scores reflecting higher life satisfaction. It is a very established tool with favorable psychometric properties.23 In our current study, Cronbach's alpha was 0.84 (McDonald's omega: 0.85).
2.3 Independent variables of interest
In the DEAS study, individuals were asked about their general use of community centers for older adults in their city or their administrative district. Answer options were no or yes.
In Germany, many cities offer such services for older adults. Community centers can offer a variety of programmes such as having breakfast together, games meeting, crochet class or exercise programme. For example, in Germany, such community centers are often organized by churches or welfare organizations. Such community centers usually aim to maintain quality of life or social participation among older participants. Moreover, such centers play an important role as a link between older adults and the municipalities.
2.4 Covariates
A wide range of covariates were chosen in agreement with prior research9, 24: Age (in years), marital status (widowed; single; divorced; married, living apart from spouse; married, living together with spouse), education (according to the ISCED-97 classification,25 which distinguishes between low [0–2], medium [3–4] and high [5–6] education), and (log) household net equivalent income (in Euro) were all taken into account when adjusting for socioeconomic factors. It was also adjusted for alcohol use (daily; several times a week; once a week; 1–3 times a month; less often; never), smoking (yes, daily; yes, occasionally; no, not anymore; no, never), and engaging in sports (also: daily; several times a week; once a week; 1–3 times a month; less often; never)—regarding the lifestyle factors. Regarding health-related factors, it was adjusted for these factors in regression analysis: self-rated health (based on a single item ranging from 1 = very good to 5 = very bad), depressive symptoms (15-item version of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale [CES-D]26 which ranges from 0 to 45, with higher values corresponding to more depressive symptoms) and a count score for chronic illnesses (from 0 to 11; covering these chronic illnesses (in each case: 0 = absence, 1 = presence): (i) cardiac and circulatory disorders, (ii) bad circulation, (iii) joint, bone, spinal or back problems, (iv) respiratory problems, asthma, shortness of breath, (v) stomach and intestinal problems, (vi) cancer, (vii) diabetes, (viii) gall bladder, liver or kidney problems, (ix) bladder problems, (x) eye problems, vision impairment, and (xi) ear problems, hearing problems). Moreover, it is worth noting that regression analyses were also stratified by sex (men; women).
2.5 Statistical analysis
Sample characteristics are first displayed stratified by the use of community center (no; yes) and sex (men; women). In a second step, multiple linear regressions were performed to investigate the link between the use of community centers and our psychosocial outcomes (total sample and stratified by sex). To address missing data,27 a full-information maximum likelihood approach was used in a robustness check. To calculate McDonald's omega, we used a recently developed Stata tool (called “omegacoef”).28 The statistical significance was determined as p value of <0.05 in our current study. Stata 16.1 was used to conduct statistical analyses (Stata Corp., College Station, Texas).
3 RESULTS
3.1 Sample characteristics
Sample characteristics stratified by the use of community center (no; yes) and sex are shown in Table 1. In Supplementary Table S1, sample characteristics stratified solely by the use of community center are shown. Among the total sample, the mean age was 74.7 years (SD: 6.5 years, ranging from 65 to 97 years [47% female]). In sum, 48.9% of the individuals had a medium education. In total, 12.8% of the individuals used community centers. Among men, about 9.1% of the individuals used community centers. Among women, about 16.9% of the individuals used community centers. There were some significant differences between the four groups presented in Table 1 (e.g., regarding to loneliness). Further details are presented in Table 1. It may be worth noting that there were no significant bivariate association between use of community center and all outcomes (with loneliness: p = 0.67; with perceived social isolation: p = 0.29; with life satisfaction: p = 0.23) among individuals aged 65 years and over.
| Variables | Men | Women | Total (N = 3755) | p-Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Not using community centers for older adults (N = 1809) | Using community centers for older adults (N = 182) | Not using community centers for older adults (N = 1466) | Using community centers for older adults (N = 298) | |||
| Age (in years): Mean (SD) | 74.8 (6.5) | 77.5 (6.3) | 73.9 (6.4) | 76.7 (6.3) | 74.7 (6.5) | <0.001 |
| Marital status: N (%) | <0.001 | |||||
| Married, living together with spouse | 1420 (78.5) | 125 (68.7) | 842 (57.4) | 114 (38.3) | 2501 (66.6) | |
| Married, living separated from spouse | 21 (1.2) | 3 (1.6) | 17 (1.2) | 2 (0.7) | 43 (1.1) | |
| Divorced | 116 (6.4) | 14 (7.7) | 164 (11.2) | 33 (11.1) | 327 (8.7) | |
| Widowed | 192 (10.6) | 34 (18.7) | 388 (26.5) | 135 (45.3) | 749 (19.9) | |
| Single | 60 (3.3) | 6 (3.3) | 55 (3.8) | 14 (4.7) | 135 (3.6) | |
| Education (ISCED-97): N (%) | <0.001 | |||||
| Low education | 38 (2.1) | 9 (4.9) | 189 (12.9) | 38 (12.8) | 274 (7.3) | |
| Medium education | 794 (43.9) | 79 (43.4) | 783 (53.4) | 181 (60.7) | 1837 (48.9) | |
| High education | 977 (54.0) | 94 (51.6) | 494 (33.7) | 79 (26.5) | 1644 (43.8) | |
| Household net equivalent income (in Euro): Mean (SD) | 2029.3 (1152.6) | 1777.0 (864.6) | 1888.8 (1307.8) | 1695.9 (645.8) | 1936.3 (1177.4) | <0.001 |
| Smoking: N (%) | <0.001 | |||||
| Yes, daily | 108 (6.9) | 9 (5.8) | 85 (6.7) | 8 (3.2) | 210 (6.5) | |
| Yes, occassionally | 54 (3.4) | 3 (1.9) | 30 (2.4) | 4 (1.6) | 91 (2.8) | |
| No, not anymore | 782 (49.7) | 91 (59.1) | 371 (29.3) | 61 (24.2) | 1305 (40.2) | |
| No, never | 628 (39.9) | 51 (33.1) | 780 (61.6) | 179 (71.0) | 1638 (50.5) | |
| Alcohol intake: N (%) | <0.001 | |||||
| Daily | 336 (21.4) | 33 (21.3) | 96 (7.6) | 11 (4.3) | 476 (14.6) | |
| Several times a week | 461 (29.3) | 36 (23.2) | 229 (18.0) | 42 (16.5) | 768 (23.6) | |
| Once a week | 224 (14.2) | 23 (14.8) | 164 (12.9) | 35 (13.8) | 446 (13.7) | |
| 1–3x a month | 147 (9.4) | 19 (12.3) | 172 (13.5) | 39 (15.4) | 377 (11.6) | |
| Less often | 262 (16.7) | 24 (15.5) | 404 (31.8) | 91 (35.8) | 781 (24.0) | |
| Never | 142 (9.0) | 20 (12.9) | 205 (16.1) | 36 (14.2) | 403 (12.4) | |
| Engaging in sports: N (%) | <0.001 | |||||
| Daily | 176 (9.7) | 20 (11.0) | 165 (11.3) | 29 (9.7) | 390 (10.4) | |
| Several times a week | 455 (25.2) | 46 (25.3) | 402 (27.4) | 75 (25.2) | 978 (26.1) | |
| Once a week | 256 (14.2) | 28 (15.4) | 281 (19.2) | 76 (25.5) | 641 (17.1) | |
| 1–3x a month | 90 (5.0) | 4 (2.2) | 46 (3.1) | 16 (5.4) | 156 (4.2) | |
| Less often | 191 (10.6) | 18 (9.9) | 95 (6.5) | 12 (4.0) | 316 (8.4) | |
| Never | 640 (35.4) | 66 (36.3) | 476 (32.5) | 90 (30.2) | 1272 (33.9) | |
| Self-rated health (from 1 = very good to 5 = very bad): Mean (SD) | 2.6 (0.8) | 2.7 (0.8) | 2.6 (0.8) | 2.6 (0.8) | 2.6 (0.8) | 0.17 |
| Depressive symptoms (from 0 to 45, higher values reflect more depressive symptoms): Mean (SD) | 5.9 (5.1) | 6.6 (5.3) | 7.0 (6.1) | 7.7 (6.1) | 6.5 (5.6) | <0.001 |
| Count score for chronic illnesses: Mean (SD) | 3.0 (2.0) | 3.8 (2.4) | 3.0 (2.1) | 3.3 (2.0) | 3.1 (2.0) | <0.001 |
| Loneliness (from 1 to 4, higher values reflect higher loneliness): Mean (SD) | 1.8 (0.5) | 1.7 (0.5) | 1.7 (0.5) | 1.7 (0.5) | 1.7 (0.5) | <0.01 |
| Perceived social isolation (from 1 to 4, higher values reflect higher perceived social isolation): Mean (SD) | 1.6 (0.6) | 1.6 (0.5) | 1.6 (0.6) | 1.6 (0.6) | 1.6 (0.6) | 0.10 |
| Life satisfaction (from 1 to 5, higher values reflect higher life satisfaction): Mean (SD) | 3.9 (0.7) | 3.9 (0.6) | 3.9 (0.7) | 3.9 (0.6) | 3.9 (0.7) | 0.51 |
- Note: Four groups were compared regarding the listed variables. To this end, oneway ANOVAs or Chi2-tests were conducted, as appropriate (p-values).
3.2 Regression analysis
First, age- and sex adjusted regressions (for the total sample) are shown in Supplementary Tables S2 and S3. Then, the main model was extended by adding marital status, education, income, smoking behavior, alcohol intake, engaging in sports, self-rated health, depressive symptoms and chronic illnesses in regression analysis. These findings are shown in Table 2 (with listwise deletion to address missings) and in Table 3 (with FIML to address missings). The sex-stratified regressions are also shown in these Tables.
| Loneliness—Total sample | Perceived social isolation—Total sample | Life satisfaction—Total sample | Loneliness—Men | Loneliness—Women | Perceived social isolation—Men | Perceived social isolation—Women | Life satisfaction—Men | Life satisfaction—Women | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Use of community center for older adults: Yes (ref.: No) | −0.02 | −0.02 | 0.07* | −0.05 | 0.01 | −0.06 | 0.01 | 0.12** | 0.02 |
| (0.03) | (0.03) | (0.03) | (0.04) | (0.04) | (0.04) | (0.04) | (0.05) | (0.05) | |
| Potential confoundersa | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Individuals | 3061 | 3031 | 3052 | 1649 | 1412 | 1634 | 1397 | 1643 | 1409 |
| R2 | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.22 | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.14 | 0.23 | 0.24 |
- Note: Results of multiple linear regressions (with listwise deletion to address missing values). Unstandardized beta coefficients are shown. Robust standard errors are shown in parentheses.
- a Potential confounders include age, sex (if applicable), marital status, education, income, smoking behavior, alcohol intake, engaging in sports, self-rated health, depressive symptoms and chronic illnesses.
- ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, + p < 0.10.
| Loneliness—Total sample | Perceived social isolation—Total sample | Life satisfaction—Total sample | Loneliness—Men | Loneliness—Women | Perceived social isolation—Men | Perceived social isolation—Women | Life satisfaction—Men | Life satisfaction—Women | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Use of community center for older adults: Yes (ref.: No) | −0.03 | −0.02 | 0.08* | −0.06 | 0.003 | −0.05 | −0.01 | 0.12** | 0.03 |
| (0.03) | (0.03) | (0.03) | (0.04) | (0.04) | (0.04) | (0.04) | (0.05) | (0.04) | |
| Potential confoundersa | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Individuals | 3246 | 3213 | 3239 | 1731 | 1515 | 1716 | 1497 | 1726 | 1513 |
| R2 | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.22 | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.14 | 0.22 | 0.23 |
- Note: Results of multiple linear regressions (with FIML to address missing values). Unstandardized beta coefficients are shown. Robust standard errors are shown in parentheses.
- a Potential confounders include age, sex (if applicable), marital status, education, income, smoking behavior, alcohol intake, engaging in sports, self-rated health, depressive symptoms and chronic illnesses.
- ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, + p < 0.10.
In the analytical sample (with loneliness as outcome measure), n equaled 3246 individuals (thereof, 1731 men and 1515 women, Table 3). It is worth repeating that it was adjusted for age, marital status, education, income, smoking behavior, alcohol intake, engaging in sports, self-rated health, depressive symptoms and chronic illnesses in regression analysis. For example, the mean variance inflation factor (VIF) equaled 2.19 (highest variance inflation factor was 4.36 [smoking]) with loneliness as outcome measure among women. This indicates that multicollinearity is not a challenge in this study.
In Table 2, multiple linear regressions revealed that the use of community centers was associated with higher life satisfaction among the total sample (β = 0.07, p < 0.05) and men (β = 0.12, p < 0.01), but not women (the interaction term for sex x use of community centers was: β = −0.10, p = 0.13). The use of community centers was not associated with loneliness or perceived social isolation for either gender (the interaction terms for sex x use of community centers were as follows: β = 0.07, p = 0.22 (with perceived social isolation as outcome) and β = 0.06, p = 0.27 (with loneliness as outcome). Compared to Table 2, results of Table 3 are nearly the same (in terms of significance and effect size). Please see Table 3 for further details. The specific values for the covariates are given in the Supplementary Table S4 (total sample).
4 DISCUSSION
Based on a large, nationally representative sample, the aim of this study was to investigate the association between the use of community centers for older adults and psychosocial factors (in terms of loneliness, perceived social isolation, and life satisfaction) among individuals aged 65 years and above (stratified by sex). Multiple linear regressions revealed that the use of community centers was associated with higher life satisfaction among men, but not women. The use of community centers was neither associated with loneliness nor perceived social isolation among both sexes. Our current study clearly extends the very limited knowledge regarding use of community centers for older adults and psychosocial factors—which is exclusively based on qualitative data (e.g.,16).
Contrary to our hypotheses, our study did not reveal an association between the use of community centers for older adults and loneliness or social isolation (in both sexes). Thus, one may conclude that the general use of such community centers may not contribute to feelings of not belonging to the society or a gap between desired and actual social relations among community-dwelling older adults in Germany. A possible explanation may be that some community centers for older adults do not meet the desires and preferences of all potential participants—as described by a former qualitative study (based on in-depth interviews among older migrants).29 Moreover, it may be the case that the use of community centers for older adults (particularly when one support others there) may contribute to other outcomes such as mastery, meaning in life, or a sense of being needed. However, future research is required to clarify such potential associations.
Following this thought regarding other potential favorable outcomes of using community centers for older adults, it appears to be very plausible that the use of community centers for older adults can contribute to satisfaction with life among older men—which confirms our initial hypothesis.
Compared to later birth cohorts in women, women from these birth cohorts are less likely to have had a job in Germany.30 This may be one reason why such older women were already quite heavily involved in (private) social activities over their life span, and the use of community centers for older adults therefore does not reflect an added value, whereas community centers for older adults may represent a key added value among men - who may otherwise have low levels of social activity. Former research from Jamaica, Ireland or Hong Kong also demonstrated such gender differences in the level of social activity - particularly social activities with friends and relatives.17-19 However, future research is required in this so far scarcely explored area of community centers for older adults.
We would like to note some strengths and limitations of our current work. Data were taken from a large, nationally representative sample. Additionally, widely used and valid instruments were used to quantify our outcome measures. One limitation is that the frequency of use and the satisfaction with the community centers was not included due to data unavailability - and thus should be examined in future studies. Furthermore, it remains unclear which offers within the community centers for older adults were used there exactly. Moreover, the cross-sectional data used in this analysis makes it difficult to clarify the directionality. Thus, one cannot dismiss the possibility, that for example, individuals scoring high in life satisfaction are more engaged in such community centers.
5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The use of community centers was positively associated with satisfaction with one's own life among male older adults. Thus, encouraging older men to use such services may be beneficial. This quantitative study provides an initial basis for further research in this neglected area. Upcoming research could also focus on related outcomes such as coping, self-worth or purpose in life and a more detailed measurement of community centers that is, the frequency of use and the length/duration of stay in the community center. Moreover, the underlying mechanisms could be clarified in future studies. Furthermore, longitudinal studies are required to confirm our present findings.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
ETHICS STATEMENT
All participants signed a written informed consent form. An ethics committee approval was not required because the criteria for an ethical statement were not met (such as risk to respondents or use of invasive methods).
Open Research
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data used in this study are third-party data. The anonymized data sets of the DEAS (1996, 2002, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020) are available for secondary analysis. The data has been made available to scientists at universities and research institutes exclusively for scientific purposes. The use of data is subject to written data protection agreements. Microdata of the German Aging Survey (DEAS) are available free of charge to scientific researchers for non-profitable purposes. The FDZ-DZA provides access and support to scholars interested in using DEAS for their research. However, for reasons of data protection, signing a data distribution contract is required before data can be obtained. For further information on the data distribution contract, please see https://www.dza.de/en/research/fdz/access-to-data/formular-deas-en-english.
