| Literature DB >> 28991166 |
Gyeong-Suk Jeon1, Kyungwon Choi2, Sung-Il Cho3.
Abstract
We examined the relationship between living alone and the prevalence of depressive symptoms in older Korean widows and assessed the individual contributions of health, social ties, and socioeconomic factors to the development of depressive symptoms. The study was a secondary analysis using data from widows, 65 years of age and older, who participated in the Living Profiles of Older People Survey (LPOPS). A logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the contributions of health, social ties, and socioeconomic factors to the development of depressive symptoms. Working status and equivalent household income were significantly associated with depressive symptoms in both those living with others and those living alone. Adjustment for health status and social ties did not change the impact of living alone on the prevalence of depressive symptoms. However, adjustment for equivalent household income eliminated the negative association between living alone and depressive symptoms. Our findings indicate that economic resources are more important than health and social ties for alleviating the negative impact of living alone on the development of depressive symptoms in older widows.Entities:
Keywords: depressive symptoms; living alone; social ties; socioeconomic status; widows
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28991166 PMCID: PMC5664692 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14101191
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Weighted percentage distribution of Korean widows aged 65 years or older living with others (N = 1101) or living alone (N = 1698) with no disability and the prevalence of depressive symptoms according to health status, social ties, and socioeconomic status.
| Co-Residency | Alone | Depressive Symptoms (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) or Mean (SD) | N (%) or Mean (SD) | Co-Residency | Alone | |||
| 1101 | 1698 | 1101 | 1698 | |||
| 20.6 | 24.3 | |||||
| Age | 75.68 (6.86) | 75.73 (6.10) | ** | |||
| 65–74 | 519 (47.1) | 729 (42.9) | 0.000 | 18.1 | 21.4 | 0.561 |
| 75–84 | 439 (39.9) | 818 (48.2) | 23.5 | 25.2 | ||
| 85+ | 143 (13.0) | 151 (8.9) | 21.1 | 34.2 | ||
| Area of residence | ||||||
| Urban | 896 (81.4) | 1230 (72.4) | 0.000 | 20.2 | 24.6 | 0.068 |
| Rural | 205 (18.6) | 468 (27.6) | 22.5 | 23.7 | ||
| Religion | ||||||
| No | 243 (22.1) | 514 (30.3) | 0.000 | 23.5 | 27.2 | 0.025 |
| Yes | 858 (77.9) | 1184 (69.7) | 19.8 | 23.1 | ||
| Number of chronic diseases | (2.69, 1.69) | (2.98, 1.86) | ** | ** | ||
| None | 92 (8.4) | 104 (6.1) | 0.063 | 9.8 | 11.5 | 0.493 |
| Yes | 1009 (91.6) | 1594 (93.9) | 21.7 | 25.2 | ||
| Relationship with children | ** | ** | ||||
| Good | 683 (62.0) | 1042 (61.4) | 0.000 | 12.9 | 14.9 | 0.054 |
| Fair/poor | 410 (37.2) | 595 (35.0) | 33.5 | 40.4 | ||
| No children | 8 (0.7) | 61 (3.6) | 25.0 | 29.5 | ||
| Relationship with friends/neighbors | ** | ** | ||||
| Good | 567 (51.5) | 994 (58.5) | 0.000 | 15.0 | 17.4 | 0.275 |
| Fair/poor | 534 (48.5) | 704 (41.5) | 26.8 | 34.1 | ||
| Social participation | ** | ** | ||||
| Yes | 360(32.7) | 616 (36.3) | 0.056 | 12.5 | 13.6 | 0.918 |
| No | 741(67.3) | 1082 (63.7) | 24.6 | 30.4 | ||
| Education | ** | ** | ||||
| High school+ | 114 (10.4) | 200 (11.8) | 0.418 | 13.0 | 20.0 | 0.368 |
| Middle school | 469 (42.6) | 693 (40.8) | 18.2 | 20.5 | ||
| Primary school | 518 (47.0) | 806 (47.4) | 24.5 | 28.7 | ||
| Working | ** | ** | ||||
| Yes | 193 (17.5) | 412 (24.3) | 0.000 | 9.8 | 15.7 | 0.010 |
| No | 908 (82.5) | 1286 (75.7) | 22.9 | 27.1 | ||
| Equivalent household annual income a | 1932.46 (1271.95) | 946.26 (924.62) | ** | ** | ||
| Highest 33.3% | 693 (62.9) | 243 (14.3) | 0.000 | 16.9 | 8.6 | 0.000 |
| Middle 33.3% | 301 (27.3) | 631 (37.2) | 25.6 | 20.3 | ||
| Lowest 33.3% | 108 (9.8) | 824 (48.5) | 31.5 | 32.0 | ||
a Annual household income was divided by the square root of the number of household members and equivalent household income was divided into tertiles. ** p < 0.01 for differences among different levels of each variable. p-values for differences between widowed women living with others and those living alone.
The explained fractions (XF) a of the health, social ties, and socioeconomic status calculated from odds ratios (95% confidence intervals [CI]) for depressive symptoms in elderly Korean widows living alone.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | Model 7 | Model 8 | Model 9 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95%CI) | OR (95%CI) | OR (95%CI) | OR (95%CI) | OR (95%CI) | OR (95%CI) | OR (95%CI) | OR (95%CI) | OR (95%CI) | |
| Living arrangement | |||||||||
| Coresidency | |||||||||
| Living alone | 1.24 (1.03–1.49) | 1.22 (1.01–1.47) | 1.24 (1.02–1.51) | 1.31 (1.09–1.58) | 1.30 (1.08–1.57) | 1.26 (1.04–1.51) | 1.28 (1.07–1.55) | 0.74 (0.60–0.93) | 0.99 (0.78–1.26) |
| Chronic disease | |||||||||
| None | |||||||||
| Yes | 2.57 (1.61–4.09) | 2.56 (1.58–1.16) | |||||||
| Relationship with children | |||||||||
| Good | |||||||||
| Fair/poor | 3.78 (3.13–4.57) | 3.1 (2.52–3.80) | |||||||
| No children | 2.45 (1.43–4.20) | 1.75 (1.00–3.07) | |||||||
| Relationship with friends/neighbors | |||||||||
| Good | |||||||||
| Fair/poor | 2.32 (1.93–2.79) | 1.36 (1.10–1.66) | |||||||
| Social participation | |||||||||
| Yes | |||||||||
| No | 2.53 (2.03–3.14) | 1.95 (1.53–2.47) | |||||||
| Education | |||||||||
| High school + | |||||||||
| Middle school | 1.17 (0.84–1.62) | 0.99 (0.69–1.41) | |||||||
| Primary school | 1.73 (1.25–2.38) | 1.15 (0.80–1.64) | |||||||
| Working | |||||||||
| No | 2.11 (1.63–2.72) | 2.13 (1.63–2.79) | |||||||
| Yes | |||||||||
| Equivalent household income b | |||||||||
| Highest 33.3% | |||||||||
| Middle 33.3% | 1.87 (1.45–2.42) | 1.62 (1.23–2.12) | |||||||
| Lowest 33.3% | 3.25 (2.47–4.27) | 1.93 (1.43–2.60) | |||||||
| Adjusted | 0.009 | 0.02 | 0.113 | 0.054 | 0.05 | 0.021 | 0.029 | 0.05 | 0.184 |
| XF | 1.27 | −0.37 | −5.91 | −4.92 | −1.52 | −3.73 | 39.94 | 19.79 |
Model 1 was adjusted for age, area of residence, and religion; Model 2 was adjusted for the same variables as Model 1 and chronic disease; Model 3 was adjusted for the same variables as Model 1 and relationship with children; Model 4 is adjusted for the same variables as Model 1 and relationship with friends and neighbors; Model 5 was adjusted for the same variables as Model 1 and social participation; Model 6 was adjusted for the same variables as Model 1 and education; Model 7 was adjusted for the same variables as Model 1 and working status; Model 8 was adjusted for the same variables as Model 1 and equivalent annual household income; and Model 9 was adjusted for all variables. a The XF of health status, social ties, and socioeconomic status differential odds of “depressive symptoms” for living alone and co-residency was calculated using the formula: ([OR(model 1) − 1] − [OR(model 2,3,4,5,6,7,8) − 1])/(ORmodel1 − 1). b Annual household income was divided by the square root of the number of household members and equivalent household income was divided into tertiles.