| Literature DB >> 30791386 |
Lijuan Gu1, Yang Cheng2, David R Phillips3, Mark Rosenberg4.
Abstract
Empirical studies of the socio-economic determinants of the wellbeing of the oldest-old in China including the role of geography and spatial factors are rare. This paper applies binary logistic regression analysis to data on the oldest-old aged 80 years old and higher from the 2011 Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Study (CLHLS). Socioeconomic determinants of the self-reported quality of life (QoL) and self-reported health (SRH) of the oldest-old population are explored, with special attention paid to the role of residence and region. The results indicate that, after controlling for individual demographic and health behavior variables, both economic status and social welfare have a significant effect on self-reported QoL and SRH. There are also significant differences in self-reported QoL among cities, towns and rural areas, with the oldest-old respondents living in Central rural, Western town and Western rural areas being significantly less likely to report good QoL, compared to the oldest-old living in Eastern cities. Significant differences in SRH exist among Eastern China, Western China and Northeastern China, with the oldest-old from Western towns being significantly less likely to report good health, and the oldest-old from Northeastern cities being significantly more likely to report good health than those from Eastern cities. The results of this study indicate that socioeconomic factors that explain self-reported QoL and SRH of the older population are in general factors that explain the self-reported QoL and SRH of the oldest-old cohorts. The interaction effect of residence and region matters more than each of the individual factors, in providing us with more detailed information on the role of geography in explaining QoL and health of the oldest-old. At a time when the oldest-old cohorts in China are at the beginning of their projected growth, these findings are vital for providing policy makers with more information on the urgency of making more geographically targeted policy to improve more effectively the self-reported QoL and SRH of the oldest-old population.Entities:
Keywords: China; geography; health; oldest-old; quality of life; socioeconomic factors
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30791386 PMCID: PMC6406950 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16040601
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Comparisons of samples before and after excluded cases were deleted.
| Total Samples | Samples with Complete Information | |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Female | 3651 (57.1) | 2128 (55.9) |
| Male | 2744 (42.9) | 1679 (44.1) |
|
| ||
| City | 921 (14.4) | 472 (12.4) |
| Town | 1746 (27.3) | 1085 (28.5) |
| Rural | 3728 (58.3) | 2250 (59.1) |
|
| ||
| Max | 106 | 106 |
| Min | 80 | 80 |
| Mean | 91.4 | 90.7 |
Note: Although a slight bias existed towards males, town and rural districts and younger oldest-old groups, the differences between the two groups of samples are not obvious. Gender, residence and age are controlled in the regression models, deleting those samples with missing information does not impact the results of this study.
Descriptive information on the self-reported QoL and SRH of the oldest-old.
| Self-Reported QoL | SRH | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bad | Good | Unhealthy | Healthy | |||
|
| ||||||
|
| 5.50 | 94.50 | 0.559 | 20.00 | 80.00 |
|
| Male | 5.00 | 95.00 | 16.40 | 83.60 | ||
| 89.71(6.39) | 90.74(6.94) |
| 89.71(6.65) | 90.9(6.96) |
| |
|
| ||||||
|
| 61.50 | 38.50 |
| |||
| Good | 16.00 | 84.00 | ||||
|
| ||||||
|
| 17.50 | 82.50 |
| |||
| Healthy | 2.50 | 97.50 | ||||
|
| ||||||
|
| 4.90 | 95.10 |
| 15.00 | 85.00 |
|
| 1 | 3.30 | 96.70 | 15.00 | 85.00 | ||
| 2 | 6.70 | 93.30 | 24.20 | 75.80 | ||
| 3 | 3.30 | 96.70 | 25.30 | 74.70 | ||
| 4 | 5.60 | 94.40 | 33.60 | 66.40 | ||
| 5 | 11.90 | 88.10 | 49.40 | 50.60 | ||
| 6 | 15.90 | 84.10 | 55.10 | 44.90 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| 3.90 | 96.10 |
| 15.80 | 84.20 |
|
| No | 5.90 | 94.10 | 19.70 | 80.30 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| 0.60 | 99.40 |
| 8.80 | 91.20 |
|
| So-so | 2.40 | 97.60 | 16.90 | 83.10 | ||
| Poor | 23.60 | 76.40 | 37.10 | 62.90 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| 3.80 | 96.20 | 0.082 | 11.50 | 88.50 |
|
| No | 5.50 | 94.50 | 19.80 | 80.20 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| 4.30 | 95.70 | 0.065 | 11.90 | 88.10 |
|
| No | 5.70 | 94.30 | 21.70 | 78.30 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| 5.00 | 95.00 |
| 18.20 | 81.80 |
|
| Rented | 8.00 | 92.00 | 21.10 | 78.90 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| 4.70 | 95.30 |
| 18.20 | 81.80 | 0.113 |
| Other relatives | 6.00 | 94.00 | 17.10 | 82.90 | ||
| Neighbors, friends or social service | 21.90 | 78.10 | 18.80 | 81.30 | ||
| Live-in caregiver | 6.70 | 93.30 | 23.30 | 76.70 | ||
| Nobody | 28.30 | 71.70 | 32.60 | 67.40 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| 2.30 | 97.70 |
| 13.70 | 86.30 |
|
| Urban employee basic medical insurance | 2.00 | 98.00 | 12.80 | 87.20 | ||
| New rural cooperative medical insurance | 6.10 | 93.90 | 19.50 | 80.50 | ||
| Gongfei medical insurance | 2.40 | 97.60 | 18.20 | 81.80 | ||
| Commercial medical insurance | 100.00 | 25.00 | 75.00 | |||
|
| ||||||
|
| 4.20 | 95.80 |
| 17.10 | 82.90 |
|
| No | 23.20 | 76.80 | 40.50 | 59.50 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| 2.20 | 97.80 |
| 15.20 | 84.80 | 0.089 |
| Town | 5.40 | 94.60 | 19.30 | 80.70 | ||
| Rural | 6.10 | 93.90 | 18.80 | 81.20 | ||
|
| ||||||
|
| 4.20 | 95.80 |
| 17.10 | 82.90 |
|
| Central China | 4.90 | 95.10 | 17.80 | 82.20 | ||
| Western China | 7.40 | 92.60 | 22.20 | 77.80 | ||
| Northeastern China | 5.60 | 94.40 | 11.80 | 88.20 | ||
Note: Marital status, education, occupation, smoking, inquiries on if the elders had their own bedroom, house category, living arrangements are not shown in this table for being insignificant in the descriptive analysis or in the following regression models.
Binary logistic regression for odds ratios of self-reported QoL (Bad QoL as reference).
| Model 1 (CI) | Model 2 (CI) | Model 3 (CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 5.02(3.57–7.08) *** | 5.14(3.64–7.25) *** | 5.09(3.60–7.20) *** |
|
| |||
| So-so | 0.28(0.10–0.78) * | 0.27(0.10–0.76) * | 0.28(0.10–0.78) * |
| Poor | 0.03(0.01–0.10) *** | 0.03(0.01–0.09) *** | 0.04(0.01–0.10) *** |
|
| |||
| Neighbors, friends or social service | 0.38(0.14–1.07) # | 0.36(0.13–1.00) # | 0.38(0.13–1.06) # |
| Live-in caregiver | 0.33(0.10–1.10) # | 0.32(0.10–1.02) # | |
| Nobody | 0.35(0.15–0.81) * | 0.34(0.15–0.78) * | 0.33(0.14–0.75) ** |
|
| 0.58(0.37–0.89) * | 0.57(0.37–0.88) * | 0.58(0.38–0.90) * |
|
| |||
| Town | 0.45(0.23–0.89) * | ||
| Rural | 0.38(0.19–0.73) ** | ||
|
| |||
| Central Rural | 0.46(0.18–1.15) # | ||
| Western Town | 0.48(0.20–1.15) # | ||
| Western Rural | 0.45(0.18–1.13) # | ||
| Sig. of H-L Test | 0.86 | 0.26 | 0.66 |
| Accuracy (%) | 94.70 | 94.50 | 94.70 |
Note: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; # p < 0.1. Anyone interested in seeing the complete tables is welcome to contact the corresponding author.
Binary logistic regression for odds ratios of self-reported health (Unhealthy as reference).
| Model 4 (CI) | Model 5 (CI) | Model 6 (CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1.18(0.98–1.43) # | 1.17(0.97–1.42) # | 1.18(0.97–1.42) # |
|
| 1.06(1.04–1.07) *** | 1.06(1.04–1.07) *** | 1.06(1.04–1.07) *** |
|
| 5.06 (3.59–7.14) *** | 5.04(3.57–7.11) *** | 5.00(3.54–7.07) *** |
|
| |||
| 1 | 0.76(0.57–1.02) # | 0.76(0.57–1.01) # | |
| 2 | 0.50(0.33–0.75) *** | 0.48(0.32–0.72) *** | 0.48(0.32–0.72) *** |
| 3 | 0.42(0.25–0.71) *** | 0.39(0.23–0.65) *** | 0.38(0.23–0.65) *** |
| 4 | 0.30(0.20–0.46) *** | 0.28(0.18–0.43) *** | 0.29(0.19–0.44) *** |
| 5 | 0.18(0.12–0.25) *** | 0.17(0.12–0.25) *** | 0.17(0.12–0.24) *** |
| 6 | 0.16(0.09–0.27) *** | 0.14(0.08–0.24) *** | 0.14(0.08–0.25) *** |
|
| |||
| So-so | 0.56(0.42–0.75) *** | 0.57(0.43–0.77) *** | 0.58(0.43–0.77) *** |
| Poor | 0.32(0.23–0.46) *** | 0.33(0.23–0.47) *** | 0.34(0.24–0.48) *** |
|
| 0.65(0.49–0.86) ** | 0.65(0.49–0.86) ** | 0.65(0.49–0.87) ** |
|
| 0.67(0.54–0.84) *** | 0.65(0.52–0.81) *** | 0.65(0.52–0.81) *** |
|
| 0.64(0.45–0.89) ** | 0.65(0.46–0.91) * | 0.65(0.46–0.92) * |
|
| |||
| Western China | 0.69(0.56–0.86) *** | ||
| Northeastern China | 1.88(1.11–3.19) * | ||
|
| |||
| Western Town | 0.67(0.43–1.04) # | ||
| Northeastern City | 2.80(1.18–6.63) * | ||
| Sig. of H-L Test | 0.79 | 0.46 | 0.99 |
| Accuracy(%) | 83.30 | 83.50 | 83.60 |
Note: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; # p < 0.1. Anyone interested in seeing the complete tables is welcome to contact the corresponding author.