Marital Status, Partner Satisfaction, and Depressive Symptoms in Older Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine if marital status is associated with depressive symptoms in men and women, and to determine if partner satisfaction is associated with depressive symptoms. METHODS: Community-dwelling adults (n = 1751) aged 65 years and older were sampled from a representative population-based registry. Age, sex, education, and marital status were self-reported. Satisfaction with living partner was assessed with an item from the terrible-delightful scale. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression was used to assess depressive symptoms, with a score of 15 or more indicating depressive symptoms. RESULTS: Only 3% of the sample were dissatisfied with their living partner, and those who were dissatisfied with their living partner had higher levels of depressive symptoms. Proportions of men with depressive symptoms were: 20.6% for never married; 19.2% for separated or divorced; 17.3% for widowed; 7.3% for married (satisfied); and 38.1% for married (dissatisfied) (chi square = 32.98, df = 4, P < 0.001). In women, the results were different: 11.8% for never married; 23.1% for separated or divorced; 15.4% for widowed; 14.4% for married (satisfied); and 41.9% for married (dissatisfied) (chi square = 18.33, df = 4, P < 0.001). In logistic regression models, a significant interaction term was seen for Marital status Sex. In stratified models, adjusting for age and education, an effect of marital status was seen in men, but not in women. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of marriage on depressive symptoms in men and women may be different, with lower levels of depressive symptoms in married men, compared with unmarried men, but similar rates in married women, compared with unmarried women. Dissatisfaction with their partner was uncommon, but highly associated with depressive symptoms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".