| Literature DB >> 36035844 |
Abstract
At present, there is a huge gap between supply and demand of old-age services in rural areas of China. Developing rural mutual old-age services is of great significance to remedy the gap. Based on the survey data of 1200 rural residents in Hubei and Henan provinces, this paper adopts binary logistic regression model to analyze the influence of special trust and general trust on rural residents' willingness to participate in mutual care for the aged. The results show that both special trust and general trust have an impact on rural residents' willingness to participate in mutual support for the elderly, but the effect of special trust on rural residents' willingness to participate in mutual support for the elderly is not significant. General trust has a significant promoting effect on rural residents' willingness to participate in mutual care for the aged. Chinese rural residents' trust in village cadres has a significant promoting effect on their willingness to participate in mutual assistance for the aged. The trust of ordinary friends significantly inhibited their willingness to participate. The educational level, living style, and economic status of Chinese rural residents have a positive impact on their willingness to participate in mutual care for the aged. Age, marital status, health status, and intergenerational relationship are inversely correlated with willingness to participate.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36035844 PMCID: PMC9410935 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2366425
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Variable description table.
| The variable name | Variable assignment | |
|---|---|---|
| The dependent variable | ||
| Willingness | Are you willing to provide mutual care for others? | 1 = yes 2 = no |
|
| ||
| The independent variables | ||
| Special trust | 1. Trust in children | 1 = The vast majority are not credible |
| 2. Trust in your neighbor | 2 = Most cannot be trusted | |
| 3. Trust in relatives | 3 = The trustworthy and the untrustworthy are half and half | |
|
| ||
| General trust | 1. Trust in village cadres | 4 = Most trusted |
| 2. Trust in other friends | 5 = Overwhelmingly credible | |
|
| ||
| Control variables | ||
| Gender | 1 = male 0 = female | |
| Age | 1 = under 50 2 = 50–59 3 = 60–69 4 = 70–79 5 = 80–89 6 = More than 90 | |
| Degree of education | 1 = unlettered 2 = primary school 3 = Junior high school 4 = senior high school 5 = secondary technical school 6 = above | |
| Marital status | 1 = unmarried 2 = have a spouse 3 = death of a spouse 4 = divorced | |
| Health condition | 1 = very health 2 = a healthier 3 = general 4 = less healthy 5 = It's not healthy | |
| Personal annual income | 1 = under 5000 CNY 2 = 5000≤ | |
| Living pattern | 1 = live alone 2 = with spouse 3 = with children 4 = with spouse and children 5 = with relatives | |
| Intergenerational relationship | Frequency of visits by adult children: 1 = every day 2 = half a month 3 = a month 4 = a few months 5 = half a year 6 = one year and above | |
Basic information of the survey sample.
| Project | Category | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 49.6 |
| Female | 50.3 | |
|
| ||
| Degree of education | Unlettered | 20.8 |
| Primary school | 32.9 | |
| Junior high school | 27.5 | |
| Senior high school | 13 | |
| Secondary technical school | 2.5 | |
| Above | 3.3 | |
|
| ||
| Health condition | Very health | 17.5 |
| a healthier | 41.8 | |
| General | 24 | |
| Less healthy | 13.7 | |
| It's not healthy | 3 | |
|
| ||
| Marital status | Unmarried | 2.3 |
| Have a spouse | 83.5 | |
| Death of a spouse | 12.9 | |
| Divorced | 1.3 | |
|
| ||
| Age | Under 50 | 23.1 |
| 50–59 | 29.5 | |
| 60–69. | 26 | |
| 70–79. | 17.4 | |
| 80–89. | 3.6 | |
| More than 90 | 0.5 | |
|
| ||
| Living pattern | Live alone | 8.7 |
| With spouse | 39.5 | |
| With children spouse, children | 18.3 | |
| With relatives | 30.9 | |
| 2.6 | ||
Figure 1Willingness to participate in mutual pension.
Cross analysis of basic characteristic variables and willingness to participate in mutual pension.
| Variable | Variable classification | Willingness to participate in mutual pension | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | ||||
| Number | Percentage | Number | Percentage | ||
| Gender | Male | 393 | 76.46 | 121 | 23.54 |
| Female | 427 | 79.37 | 111 | 20.63 | |
|
| |||||
| Age | ≤50 | 206 | 85.12 | 36 | 14.88 |
| 50–59 | 251 | 81.23 | 58 | 18.77 | |
| 60–69 | 219 | 80.22 | 54 | 19.78 | |
| 70–79 | 117 | 64.29 | 65 | 35.71 | |
| 80–89 | 22 | 57.89 | 16 | 42.11 | |
| ≥90 | 3 | 60.00 | 2 | 40.00 | |
|
| |||||
| Marital status | Unmarried | 19 | 79.17 | 5 | 20.83 |
| Have a spouse | 694 | 79.86 | 175 | 20.14 | |
| Death of a spouse | 90 | 66.67 | 45 | 33.33 | |
| Divorced | 10 | 71.43 | 4 | 28.57 | |
|
| |||||
| Health condition | Very healthy | 155 | 84.70 | 28 | 15.30 |
| Healthier | 360 | 82.19 | 78 | 17.81 | |
| General | 192 | 76.49 | 59 | 23.51 | |
| Less healthy | 90 | 62.50 | 54 | 37.50 | |
| Not healthy | 21 | 65.63 | 11 | 34.38 | |
Figure 2The choice of pension.
Figure 3Elderly care responsibilities.
Figure 4Understanding of mutual pension.
Figure 5The necessity of developing the model of mutual support for the aged.
Multicollinearity diagnosis.
| Nonstandardized coefficient | The standard coefficient | Collinearity statistics | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | Standard error of | A trial version |
| Sig. | Tolerance | VIF | |
| (Constant) | 2.765 | 0.119 | 23.143 | 0.000 | |||
| Trust in village cadres | 0.077 | 0.028 | 0.094 | 2.741 | 0.006 | 0.643 | 1.556 |
| Trust in neighbor | 0.073 | 0.049 | 0.071 | 1.485 | 0.138 | 0.329 | 3.039 |
| Trust in relatives | 0.354 | 0.045 | 0.363 | 7.919 | 0.000 | 0.361 | 2.772 |
| Trust in other friends | −0.023 | 0.030 | −0.029 | −0.761 | 0.447 | 0.528 | 1.895 |
|
| |||||||
| A: dependent variable: trust degree of children | |||||||
Descriptive statistics of independent and control variables.
| Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Mean standard error | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Special trust | Trust in children | 1 | 5 | 4.67 | 0.023 |
| Trust in relatives | 1 | 5 | 4.00 | 0.024 | |
| Trust in your neighbor | 1 | 5 | 3.91 | 0.023 | |
|
| |||||
| General trust | Trust in village cadres | 1 | 5 | 3.70 | 0.028 |
| Trust in other friends | 1 | 5 | 3.53 | 0.029 | |
|
| |||||
| Control variable | Gender | 1 | 2 | 1.50 | 0.016 |
| Age | 1 | 6 | 2.50 | 0.036 | |
| Degree of education | 1 | 6 | 2.54 | 0.038 | |
| Marital status | 1 | 4 | 2.13 | 0.013 | |
| Health condition | 1 | 9 | 2.43 | 0.032 | |
| Personal annual income | 1 | 6 | 2.52 | 0.044 | |
| Living pattern | 0 | 6 | 2.78 | 0.034 | |
| Intergenerational relationship | 1 | 6 | 4.07 | 0.074 | |
Regression results.
| Change the amount | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trust in children | 0.114 | 0.081 | ||
| (0.163) | (0.165) | |||
|
| ||||
| Trust in relatives | −0.518 | −0.440 | ||
| (0.277) | (0.246) | |||
|
| ||||
| Trust in your neighbor | 0.270 | 0.260 | ||
| (0.231) | (0.262) | |||
|
| ||||
| Trust in village cadres | 0.273∗∗∗ | 0.287∗∗∗ | ||
| (0.133) | (0.143) | |||
|
| ||||
| Trust in other friends | −0.353∗∗∗ | −0.273∗∗∗ | ||
| (0.132) | (0.166) | |||
|
| ||||
| Gender | 0.219 | 0.209 | 0.199 | 0.196 |
| (0.215) | (0.217) | (0.219) | (0.220) | |
|
| ||||
| Age | −0.091 | −0.092 | −0.123 | −0.123 |
| (0.110) | (0.111) | (0.112) | (0.1138) | |
|
| ||||
| Level of education | 0.279∗∗ | 0.244∗∗ | 0.223∗∗ | 0.205∗∗ |
| (0.124) | (0.126) | (0.125) | (0.127) | |
|
| ||||
| Marital status | −0.103 | −0.157 | −0.103 | −0.146 |
| (0.247) | (0.249) | (0.249) | (0.251) | |
|
| ||||
| Health condition | −0.242∗∗ | −0.254∗∗ | −0.232∗∗ | −0.235∗∗ |
| (0.111) | (0.113) | (0.113) | (0.114) | |
|
| ||||
| Personal annual income | 0.090 | 0.078 | 0.084 | 0.076 |
| (0.096) | (0.097) | (0.098) | (0.099) | |
|
| ||||
| Living pattern | 0.108 | 0.116 | 0.102 | 0.103 |
| (0.103) | (0.104) | (0.104) | (0.105) | |
|
| ||||
| Intergenerational relationship | −0.43 | −0.053 | −0.053 | −0.060 |
| (0.053) | (0.054) | (0.054) | (0.055) | |
|
| ||||
| Constant term | 1.211 | 2.004 | 1.806 | 2.031 |
| (1.012) | (1.371) | (1.175) | (1.379) | |
|
| ||||
| Chi-square | 40.515 | 46.241 | 40.695 | 52.813 |
| ( | ( | ( | ( | |
|
| ||||
| −2 logarithmic likelihood | 628.249 | 622.065 | 612.697 | 609.128 |
| Nagelkerke | 0.093 | 0.106 | 0.115 | 0.122 |
Note. Standard error in parentheses, standard regression coefficient outside parentheses; ∗,∗∗, and ∗∗∗ were significant at the level of 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001, respectively.