| Literature DB >> 31816990 |
Yuxi Liu1,2, Rassamee Sangthong2, Thammasin Ingviya3, Chonghua Wan1,4.
Abstract
Chinese economic development has led to a significant rise in internal migration over the last 20 years, including large numbers of elderly. When elderly Chinese people migrate, they still register their residency to their place of origin and often do not register with the new administrative office at the destination due to the household registration (hukou) system in China. Thus, most of these migrant elderly do not receive full social services, possibly leading to poor subjective well-being. This study aims to qualitatively examine the level of subjective well-being and its determinants among migrants and local elderly in Dongguan City of Guangdong province, one of the most rapid economically developing areas in China. We also present the results of in-depth interviews among 27 elderly, 15 elderly migrants and 12 local elderly living in Dongguan. The results reveal that the overall subjective well-being of the two groups were good. Most migrants believed their well-being had remained stable or even improved over time due to family reunion and a better physical environment. Elderly's most valuable needs and the main reason of migration is family reunion; however, inadequacy of social support, including community support and government support (e.g., gift during holiday season, free health examination, healthcare expenditure reimbursement), cannot be neglected for maintaining a good level of well-being. The well-being of migrant elderly can be further enhanced by promoting social services and welfare, recreational activities, and enhancing healthcare reimbursement in their new home.Entities:
Keywords: elderly migrants; local elderly; subjective well-being; urbanization
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31816990 PMCID: PMC6926902 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16234874
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Characteristics of the migrant and local elderly groups (n = 27).
| Migrants ( | Locals ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 7 | 6 |
| Female | 8 | 6 |
| Age (years) | ||
| 60–69 | 10 | 8 |
| 70–79 | 4 | 3 |
| 80+ | 1 | 1 |
| Marital status | ||
| Married | 11 | 8 |
| Separated/divorced/widowed | 4 | 4 |
| Current employment | ||
| Yes | 3 | 2 |
| No | 12 | 10 |
| Living arrangement | ||
| With family | 15 | 7 |
| Alone | 0 | 5 |
| Main source of income | ||
| Pension | 8 | 9 |
| Family support | 4 | 0 |
| Salary/savings | 3 | 3 |
| Duration of migration (years) | ||
| <3 | 4 | |
| 3–10 | 5 | |
| >10 | 6 |
Self-rated subjective well-being (SWB) among migrant and local elderly and change in SWB among migrant elderly (n = 27).
| Migrant (Residential Duration) | Local | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <3 years | 3–10 years | >10 years | ( | ||
| ( | ( | ( | |||
| SWB status | |||||
| Very good | 8 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 2 |
| Good | 11 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 6 |
| Fair | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Poor | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Very poor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Change in SWB | |||||
| Better | 8 | 0 | 2 | 6 | |
| Same | 5 | 3 | 2 | 0 | |
| Worse | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |
Relationship between health and SWB perceived by the participants.
| Participant | Good Health, Good SWB | Poor Health, Poor SWB |
|---|---|---|
| Female, 65 years old, 20-years migration |
| |
| Male, 73 years old, 7-years migration |
|
|
| Female, 80 years old, 8-years migration |
| |
| Male, 64 years old, local |
| |
| Male, 67 years old, local |
| |
| Female, 69 years old, local |
| |
| Male, 71 years old, local |
|
Summary of participants’ perceived quality of environment (n = 5).
| Environment | Participant | Recodes |
|---|---|---|
|
| Male, 71 years old, 8-year migrant |
|
| Male, 65 years old, 4-year migrant |
| |
|
| Male, 71 years old, local |
|
| Female, 60 years old, local |
| |
| Male, 66 years old, local |
|
Perception of effects of determinants on SWB among migrant and local elderly.
| Determinants | Perceived Effects of Determinants | |
|---|---|---|
| Migrant | Local | |
| Health status | ++ | ++ |
| Family relationship | ++ | ++ |
| Social relations | - | + |
| Physical environment | + | +/- |
| Community support | - | ++ |
| Government support | - | ++ |
| Life adaption among migrants | +/- | NA |
+ good: - poor, +/- has both views, NA: not applicable.