| Literature DB >> 35886464 |
Chang Su1, Lixia Yang1, Linying Dong2, Weiguo Zhang3.
Abstract
This study examined the effects of loneliness, social support, and acculturation on psychological well-being, as indexed by general emotional well-being and life satisfaction, of older Chinese adults living in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 168 older Chinese adults, recruited via WeChat and the internet, completed an online study through a facilitated Zoom or phone meeting, or through a website link, individually or in a group. The testing package included demographic information, The UCLA Loneliness Scale, The Multidimensional Perceived Social Support Scale, Vancouver Index of Acculturation, The Satisfaction with Life Scale, and The World Health Organization's Five Well-Being Index. The results showed that the psychological well-being (both general emotional well-being and cognitively perceived life satisfaction) was positively predicted by perceived social support but negatively predicted by loneliness. Acculturation was not predictive of both outcomes, and it did not moderate the predictive relationships of social support or loneliness. The results shed light on the importance of community services that target enhancing social support and reducing loneliness in promoting psychological well-being of older Chinese immigrants in Canada amidst and post the pandemic.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; life satisfaction; loneliness; older Chinese immigrants; psychological well-being; social support
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35886464 PMCID: PMC9322517 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19148612
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Sample characteristics and their relationship with the two outcome variables: WHO-5 and SWLS (n = 168).
| Variables | Sample Size | WHO-5 | SWLS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Age group | 65–75 | 97 (57.1) | 14.19 (3.77) | 0.40 | 0.84 | 5.26 (0.78) | 0.03 | 0.85 |
| ≥76 | 63 (37.5) | 14.07 (3.30) | 5.28 (0.82) | |||||
| Gender | Male | 53 (31.5) | 14.54 (3.37) | 2.85 | 0.06 | 5.25 (0.76) | 0.74 | 0.48 |
| Female | 106 (63.1) | 13.68 (3.67) | 5.26 (0.81) | |||||
| Marital status | Single | 9 (5.4) | 13.87 (4.36) | 0.15 | 0.93 | 5.60 (0.83) | 1.06 | 0.37 |
| Married | 120 (71.4) | 14.12 (3.56) | 5.27 (0.80) | |||||
| Divorced | 7 (4.2) | 13.60 (4.00) | 4.91 (0.41) | |||||
| Widowed | 30 (17.9) | 14.45 (3.56) | 5.34 (0.78) | |||||
| Income | Low | 82 (48.8) | 13.48 (3.54) | 5.08 | 0.03 | 5.20 (0.86) | 1.55 | 0.22 |
| Middle | 86 (51.2) | 14.71 (3.55) | 5.35 (0.71) | |||||
| Place of origin | Mainland | 159 (94.6) | 14.08 (3.59) | 0.66 | 0.62 | 5.28 (0.79) | 0.41 | 0.80 |
| Hongkong | 6 (3.1) | 13.20 (4.52) | 5.30 (0.86) | |||||
| Taiwan | 1 (1.0) | 13.60 (0.00) | 4.60 (0.00) | |||||
| Years living in Canada | <6 years | 31 (19) | 14.01 (3.67) | 0.03 | 0.87 | 5.26 0(.89) | 0.00 | 0.97 |
| ≥ 6 years | 133 (78.6) | 14.13 (3.63) | 5.27 (0.77) | |||||
| Education level | ≥college | 116 (69) | 14.30 (3.57) | 0.97 | 0.33 | 5.20 (0.81) | 3.51 | 0.06 |
| <college | 52 (31) | 13.71 (3.63) | 5.45 (0.72) | |||||
| Citizenship | Citizen | 39 (23.2) | 14.42 (3.32) | 0.17 | 0.84 | 5.33 (0.78) | 0.22 | 0.81 |
| Permanent | 119 (70.8) | 14.08 (3.67) | 5.27 (0.79) | |||||
| Employment | Retired | 151 (89.9) | 14.07 (3.65) | 0.24 | 0.87 | 5.29 (0.79) | 0.57 | 0.64 |
| Full-time | 4 (2.4) | 14.60 (4.68) | 4.95 (0.84) | |||||
| Self-employed | 1 (0.6) | 12.00 (0.00) | 6.00 (0.00) | |||||
| Religion | No | 114 (67.9) | 14.39 (3.68) | 1.75 | 0.19 | 5.30 (0.79) | 0.22 | 0.64 |
| Yes | 52 (30.1) | 13.60 (3.37) | 5.23 (0.80) | |||||
Note: M = mean, SD = Standard Deviation. Variables with p ≤ 0.20 would be entered in the regression models as covariates (see Table 2 and Table 3).
Hierarchical regression on emotional psychological well-being (i.e., WHO-5).
| Model | Predictors |
| 95% |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Step 1 Model | 0.14 | 5.06 *** | |||
| Loneliness | −3.11 ** | −5.04, −1.18 | |||
| Social Support | 1.04 * | 0.21, 1.87 | |||
| Income | |||||
| Middle (reference) | |||||
| Low | −1.08 * | −2.11, −0.04 | |||
| Gender | |||||
| Female (reference) | |||||
| Male | 0.35 | −0.78, 1.47 | |||
| Religion | |||||
| Yes (reference) | |||||
| No | 0.81 | −0.32, 1.94 | |||
| Step 2 Model | 0.14 | 0.81 | |||
| Loneliness | −3.24 ** | −5.19, −1.29 | |||
| Social Support | 0.91 * | 0.04, 1.77 | |||
| Income | |||||
| Middle (reference) | |||||
| Low | −1.14 * | −2.19, −0.10 | |||
| Gender | |||||
| Female (reference) | |||||
| Male | 0.42 | −0.72, 1.55 | |||
| Religion | |||||
| Yes (reference) | |||||
| No | 0.81 | −0.32, 1.94 | |||
| Acculturation | 0.31 | −0.33, 0.94 | |||
| Enculturation | 0.31 | −0.52, 1.13 |
CI = confidence interval; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001.
Hierarchical regression on life satisfaction (i.e., SWLS).
| Model | Predictors |
| 95% |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Step 1 Model | 0.13 | 8.31 *** | |||
| Loneliness | −0.52 * | −0.94, −0.10 | |||
| Social Support | 0.35 *** | 0.17, 0.53 | |||
| Education | |||||
| ≥college (reference) | |||||
| <college | 0.27 ** | 0.02, 0.51 | |||
| Step 2 Model | 0.14 | 0.49 | |||
| Loneliness | −0.54 * | −0.97, −0.12 | |||
| Social Support | 0.33 *** | 0.14, 0.52 | |||
| Education | |||||
| ≥college (reference) | |||||
| <college | 0.26 * | 0.01, 0.51 | |||
| Acculturation | 0.06 | −0.08, 0.20 | |||
| Enculturation | 0.04 | −0.14, 0.22 |
CI = confidence interval; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001.