Early Parental Loss and Self-Rated Health of Older Women and Men: A Population-Based, Multi-Country Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Death of a parent in childhood can diminish both the nurturing that promotes healthy development, and household income. We consider, for the first time, whether this adverse childhood experience is associated with self-rated health decades later, among seniors and whether this lifelong effect is different for women and men. METHODS: The International Mobility in Aging (IMIAS) study is a prospective cohort with survey information and biophysical measures and markers from 2000 community-dwelling 65-74 year olds in Canada, Colombia, Brazil and Albania. We assessed the independent impact of death of a parent, early hunger, and witnessing violence, while controlling for current income sufficiency and other early adversities on self-rated health using baseline (2012) IMIAS data. Regressions grouping and then separating women and men were compared. RESULTS: Approximately 17% of the 1991 participants had experienced early parental loss. Overall 56% rated their health as good however parental loss predicted poorer adult health, as did early hunger but not witnessing violence. Disaggregated analyses revealed that the health consequences of parental loss were significant only among men (p = 0.000 versus p = 0.210 for women) whereas early hunger predicted poor self-rated health for both (p = 0.000). CONCLUSION: Parental loss should be considered as a potent adverse childhood experience with life-long consequences for health. The gender difference in its effect, speaks to unidentified and modifiable traits that appear to be more common among women and that may build resilience to long-term harms of early parental death.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".