| Literature DB >> 35206158 |
Nnaelue Godfrey Ojijieme1, Xinzhu Qi1, Chin-Man Chui2.
Abstract
Existing research demonstrates that the effect of remittances on different health outcomes of elderly adults in low-income countries with inadequate social security is inconclusive. The present study set out to fill this gap by examining the effects of receiving remittances on the healthy social and physical functioning of Nigeria's elderly adults. We also investigate the nonlinear association between remittances and social and physical functioning to identify the minimum amount required to engender healthy social and physical functioning in Nigerian elderly adults. This study utilized data from the 2018/2019 Nigerian Living Standard Survey (NLSS), which included 55,350 young people aged 12-44 (control group) and 18,937 elderly adults aged 45 and above (treatment group). We addressed our objectives using logistic regression-adjusted predicted probabilities and predictive margins. The results reveal that remittance recipients have higher healthy social functioning probabilities than non-recipients. We also found that the influence that remittances have on social functioning depends on the amount of the remittances received. Quantitatively, receiving more than NGN 1,200,000 in remittances ensures increased social functioning probabilities. Given the disparity between the average remittance amount of NGN 54,306.92 received by elderly adults and the NGN 1,200,000 threshold associated with healthy social functioning, bridging this gap is paramount for promoting social functioning among Nigerian elderly adults. We also discussed policy implications for fostering the healthy aging of the population in the interim.Entities:
Keywords: adjusted predicted probabilities; healthy aging; marginsplot; physical functioning; predictive margins; remittances; social functioning
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35206158 PMCID: PMC8871652 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19041968
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The global distribution of the population by age groups.
Sample Characteristics.
| Variables | Total Sample | The Young Proportions | Middle-Aged | The Elderly |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical Functioning | ||||
| Low Functioning | 0.103 | 0.045 | 0.193 | 0.511 |
| High Functioning | 0.897 | 0.955 | 0.807 | 0.489 |
| Social Functioning | ||||
| Low Functioning | 0.364 | 0.404 | 0.175 | 0.468 |
| High Functioning | 0.636 | 0.596 | 0.825 | 0.532 |
| Remittances | ||||
| No Remittances | 0.721 | 0.778 | 0.621 | 0.352 |
| Received Remittances | 0.279 | 0.222 | 0.379 | 0.648 |
| Remittance Amount | ||||
| =0 | 0.721 | 0.778 | 0.621 | 0.352 |
| >0 | 0.279 | 0.222 | 0.379 | 0.648 |
| Marital Status | ||||
| Married | 0.517 | 0.431 | 0.837 | 0.450 |
| Unmarried | 0.483 | 0.569 | 0.163 | 0.550 |
| Population groups | ||||
| Young | 0.745 | 1.000 | ||
| Middle-aged | 0.192 | 1.000 | ||
| The Elderly | 0.063 | 1.000 | ||
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 0.486 | 0.481 | 0.502 | 0.496 |
| Female | 0.514 | 0.519 | 0.498 | 0.504 |
| Literacy | ||||
| Illiterate | 0.433 | 0.376 | 0.558 | 0.733 |
| Literate | 0.567 | 0.624 | 0.442 | 0.267 |
| Residential Area | ||||
| Urban | 0.296 | 0.297 | 0.297 | 0.710 |
| Rural | 0.704 | 0.703 | 0.703 | 0.290 |
| Geopolitical Zone | ||||
| North-Central | 0.205 | 0.211 | 0.187 | 0.195 |
| Northeast | 0.183 | 0.194 | 0.150 | 0.156 |
| Northwest | 0.219 | 0.228 | 0.193 | 0.207 |
| Southeast | 0.123 | 0.107 | 0.168 | 0.152 |
| South-South | 0.142 | 0.142 | 0.144 | 0.143 |
| Southwest | 0.128 | 0.118 | 0.158 | 0.147 |
Area total of 74,287 observation are included the total sample. The young population is represented by 55,350 responses, middle-aged is represented by 14,281 responses, and the elderly population is represented by 4656 responses.
The logistic regression on Nigerians’ social and physical functioning status.
| Variables | Healthy Aging Indicators | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social Functioning | Physical Functioning | |||
| AOR | CI | AOR | CI | |
| Ref: Young population | ||||
| Middle Aged | 1.985 *** | 1.665–2.367 | 0.236 *** | 0.207–0.270 |
| Elderly | 0.669 *** | 0.559–0.801 | 0.061 *** | 0.050–0.073 |
| Received Remittances | 1.523 *** | 1.260–1.840 | 0.837 ** | 0.706–0.993 |
| Effect Remittances | ||||
| Ref: Young population without Remittances | ||||
| Middle Aged Received Remittances | 0.926 | 0.739–1.161 | 0.840 ** | 0.717–0.985 |
| The Elderly Received Remittances | 0.655 *** | 0.532–0.807 | 0.963 | 0.776–1.195 |
| Remittances | 1.000 *** | 1.000–1.000 | 1.000 * | 1.000–1.000 |
| Remittances Remittances | 1.000 ** | 1.000–1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000–1.000 |
| Demographic Factors | ||||
| Females | 0.433 *** | 0.333–0.562 | 1.064 * | 0.991–1.142 |
| Married | 0.286 *** | 0.243–0.336 | 0.968 | 0.872–1.074 |
| Literate | 0.876 * | 0.755–1.016 | 1.570 *** | 1.412–1.745 |
| Urban | 0.637 *** | 0.570–0.712 | 1.112 | 0.958–1.292 |
| Geopolitical Zones | ||||
| North-Central | 1.261 | 0.721–2.207 | 0.942 | 0.532–1.668 |
| Northwest | 0.885 | 0.480–1.632 | 1.638 ** | 1.049–2.559 |
| Southeast | 1.319 | 0.903–1.928 | 0.883 | 0.537–1.451 |
| South-South | 1.240 | 0.760–2.024 | 1.055 | 0.591–1.883 |
| Southwest | 1.437 * | 0.959–2.155 | 1.156 | 0.762–1.754 |
| Constant | 4.940 *** | 3.315–7.362 | 14.982 *** | 10.295–21.805 |
| Observations | 74,287 | 74,287 | ||
AOR = Adjusted Odds Ratio; CI = Confidence Interval; ref = Reference group; *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.
Adjusted predicted probability of SF by remittance receipt status.
| Variables | Margin | Confidence Interval |
|---|---|---|
| Young No Remittances | 0.614 | 0.572–0.655 |
| Young Received Remittances | 0.708 | 0.667–0.749 |
| Middle-aged No Remittances | 0.759 | 0.706–0.813 |
| Middle-aged Received Remittances | 0.817 | 0.787–0.846 |
| The Elderly No Remittances | 0.515 | 0.464–0.567 |
| The Elderly Received Remittances | 0.515 | 0.462–0.567 |
Figure 2(a) Adjusted predicted probabilities of SF by population groups and remittance receipt status. (b) Adjusted predicted probabilities of PF by population groups and remittance receipt status.
Adjusted predicted probability of PF by remittance receipt status.
| Variables | Margin | Confidence Interval |
|---|---|---|
| Young No Remittances | 0.957 | 0.951–0.963 |
| Young Received Remittances | 0.949 | 0.938–0.961 |
| Middle-aged No Remittances | 0.840 | 0.816–0.864 |
| Middle-aged Received Remittances | 0.787 | 0.751–0.823 |
| The Elderly No Remittances | 0.574 | 0.527–0.621 |
| The Elderly Received Remittances | 0.520 | 0.472–0.569 |
Figure 3Predictive margins of SF by population groups and remittance amount.
Remittance spending patterns.
| Spending Destinations | Spending Proportions |
|---|---|
| Maintenance for upkeep/subsidize consumption | 81.8% |
| Mortgage fund for land, houses, and others | 0.5% |
| Investment in shares, bonds, or others | 0.6% |
| Development projects in the community | 0.3% |
| Payments/donations to non-profit institutions | 0.3% |
| Payments/donations to NGOs | 0.1% |
| Payment of hospital bills | 4.7% |
| Payment of school fees of household | 8.2% |
| Purchase of agricultural inputs | 2.0% |
| Construction of buildings | 0.6% |
| Others | 1.2% |
Note: Expenditure patterns for 21% of the sample.