Multidomain Engagement and Self-Reported Psychosomatic Symptoms in Middle-Aged Women and Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity can be operationalized as the presence of multiple psychosomatic symptoms and has been shown to be detrimental to the quality of life across the life span. Middle-aged adults are generally engaged in multiple life domains simultaneously. This is one of the developmental challenges of middle adulthood as it can lead to conflict between the demands of different domains and, in turn, contribute to multiple psychosomatic symptoms, thereby diminishing the quality of life. This may be particularly true for women. Facilitation between life domains may serve to reduce the number of psychosomatic symptoms. However, this subject has been largely neglected in the literature. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to close this gap by investigating the influence of conflict and facilitation between life domains (work, family, leisure) on self-reported psychosomatic symptoms in middle-aged women and men. METHODS: Life domain conflict/facilitation and psychosomatic symptoms were assessed via self-report in a cross-sectional study with 277 adults aged 30-55 years (mean = 41.70, SD = 7.2; 56.7% women) who all worked at least 30 h/week and lived with their partner or family. RESULTS: In line with our hypothesis, women reported more psychosomatic symptoms when they experienced conflict between life domains. However, contrary to expectation, they did not profit more from facilitation than men and, at low levels of facilitation, women even reported more psychosomatic symptoms than men. In men, there was no association between life domain conflict/facilitation and psychosomatic symptoms. The results were robust when statistically controlling for neuroticism. CONCLUSIONS: Engagement in multiple life domains influences the frequency of psychosomatic symptoms in women, but not in men: women suffer more and profit less than men from combining work, family and leisure.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".