| Literature DB >> 36062110 |
Di Zong1,2, Zhongqian Lu1,2, Xinfei Shi1,2, Ying Shan1,2, Shixue Li1,2, Fanlei Kong1,2.
Abstract
The total number of migrant elderly following children (MEFC) has gradually increased along with population aging and urbanization in recent decades in China. The purpose of this study was to investigate the mediating effect of family support on the relationship between acculturation and loneliness among the MEFC in Jinan, China. A total of 656 MEFC were selected by multistage cluster random sampling. Loneliness was measured using the short-form UCLA Loneliness Scale (ULS-8), while acculturation and family support were assessed using a self-designed questionnaire. Descriptive analysis, univariate analysis, and the structural equation model (SEM) were conducted to illustrate the relationship between the above indicators and loneliness. The average ULS-8 score of the MEFC was 12.82 ± 4.05 in this study. Acculturation of the MEFC exerted a negatively direct effect on loneliness and a positively direct effect on family support simultaneously, while family support exerted a negatively direct effect on loneliness. Family support partially mediated the relationship between acculturation and loneliness [95% CI: -0.079 to 0.013, p < 0.001], while the mediating effect of family support accounted for 14.0% of the total effect. The average ULS-8 score of 12.82 ± 4.05 implied a low level of loneliness in the MEFC in Jinan, China. Acculturation was found to be correlated with loneliness, while the mediating role of family support between acculturation and loneliness was established. Policy recommendations were provided to reduce loneliness and improve the acculturation and family support of the MEFC according to the findings above.Entities:
Keywords: acculturation; family support; loneliness; mediating effect; migrant elderly following children
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36062110 PMCID: PMC9428277 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.934237
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Demographic characteristics of the MEFC.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
| Total | 656 (100) | 12.82 (4.05) | ||
| Sex | 0.608 | 0.436 | ||
| Male | 238 (36.3) | 12.66 (4.14) | ||
| Female | 418 (63.7) | 12.92 (4.00) | ||
| Age (years) | 1.160 | 0.296 | ||
| 60–62 | 126 (19.2) | 17.01 (2.63) | ||
| 63–65 | 197 (30.1) | 17.05 (2.98) | ||
| 66–68 | 183 (27.9) | 16.73 (3.08) | ||
| 69– | 150 (22.9) | 17.17 (3.07) | ||
| Hukou | 0.364 | 0.716 | ||
| Rural | 574 (87.5) | 12.84 (4.10) | ||
| City | 82 (12.5) | 12.67 (3.74) | ||
| Marital status | 1.592 | 0.112 | ||
| Currently married | 583 (88.9) | 12.73 (4.03) | ||
| Single | 73 (11.2) | 13.53 (4.16) | ||
| Employment | 2.416 | 0.090 | ||
| Employed | 37 (5.6) | 12.62 (4.29) | ||
| Retired | 131 (20.0) | 12.15 (3.88) | ||
| Unemployed | 488 (74.4) | 13.02 (4.07) | ||
| Education level | 1.765 | 0.152 | ||
| Illiteracy | 196 (29.9) | 13.36 (4.18) | ||
| Primary school | 144 (22.0) | 12.75 (3.94) | ||
| Junior high school | 192 (29.3) | 12.55 (4.04) | ||
| High school and above | 124 (18.9) | 12.48 (3.97) | ||
| Monthly income | 0.849 | 0.630 | ||
| 0–1,000 | 422 (64.3) | 17.11 (3.06) | ||
| 1,001–2,000 | 78 (11.9) | 16.17 (2.54) | ||
| 2,000 and above | 156 (23.8) | 16.72 (2.78) |
MEFC, migrant elderly following children.
t-test.
F-test.
Acculturation and Family support of the MEFC.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
| Wedding customs | 12.82 (4.05) | 3.749 | <0.01 | |
| Don't understand | 378 (57.6) | 17.34 (3.08) | ||
| Understand | 278 (42.4) | 16.47 (2.72) | ||
| Funeral customs | 3.791 | <0.01 | ||
| Don't understand | 393 (59.9) | 17.33 (3.06) | ||
| Understand | 263 (40.1) | 16.44 (2.74) | ||
| Diet custom | 4.737 | <0.01 | ||
| Don't understand | 321 (48.9) | 17.53 (3.11) | ||
| Understand | 335 (51.1) | 16.45 (2.72) | ||
| Special food snacks | 4.936 | <0.01 | ||
| Don't understand | 351 (53.5) | 17.50 (3.05) | ||
| Understand | 305 (46.5) | 16.37 (2.74) | ||
| Children support | 2.270 | <0.05 | ||
| None or low support | 69 (10.5) | 17.74 (3.09) | ||
| High support | 587 (89.5) | 16.89 (2.94) | ||
| Spouse support | 0.762 | 0.121 | ||
| None or low support | 108 (16.5) | 17.38 (3.14) | ||
| High support | 548 (83.5) | 16.90 (2.92) | ||
| Sibling support | 3.830 | <0.01 | ||
| None or low support | 303 (46.2) | 17.45 (2.85) | ||
| High support | 353 (53.8) | 16.57 (3.00) | ||
| Other family support | 5.140 | <0.01 | ||
| None or low support | 417 (63.6) | 17.42 (2.86) | ||
| High support | 239 (36.4) | 16.21 (2.99) |
MEFC, migrant elderly following children.
The model fit index.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Change range | – | 0–1 | 0–1 | – | – |
| Reference standard | >0.90 | >0.90 | >0.90 | <0.080 | |
| Actual value | 0.946 | 0.938 | 0.915 | 0.061 |
CFI, Comparative Fitness Index; GFI, Goodness of Fit Index; AGFI, Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index; RMSEA, Root-mean Square Error of Approximation.
Figure 1Path diagram of the association between acculturation and loneliness with family support as a mediator (n = 656). Employing the cross-sectional data, the relationship between acculturation and family support, and loneliness was analyzed. Arrows indicate the associations and directions between variables, and double curved arrows indicate the correlation between each factor. All parameter estimates were statistically significant (p < 0.001); χ2 = Chi-square; GFI, Goodness of Fit Index; AGFI, Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index; CFI, Comparative Fitness Index; RMSEA, Root-mean Square Error of Approximation; MEFC, migrant elderly following children.
The standardized total, direct, and indirect effects of acculturation on loneliness with family support as mediators (N = 656).
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||
| Direct effect | −0.22 | 0.041 | <0.01 | 86 | −0.298 | −0.138 |
| Acculturation→ Loneliness | ||||||
| Indirect effect | −0.037 | 0.016 | <0.01 | 14 | −0.079 | −0.013 |
| Acculturation→ Family support | ||||||
| Family support→ Loneliness | ||||||
| Total effect | −0.25 | 0.041 | <0.01 | 100 | −0.341 | −0.170 |
SE, standard errors; CI, confidence interval; LLCL, lower limits confidence interval; ULCL, upper limits confidence interval.