What Type of Social Support Influences Self-Reported Physical and Mental Health Among Older Women?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We examined which types of social support were associated with older women's self-report of physical and mental health and whether the effects of social support were moderated by race/ethnicity. METHOD: Women completed a health behavior survey that included the Medical Outcomes Study-Short Form-12 (MOS SF-12). Single race/ethnic group regressions examined whether different types of social support were related to health. We also examined Pratt's relative importance measures. RESULTS: Emotional support had the strongest effect on both physical and mental health, explaining the highest amount of variation, except among African Americans. Race/ethnicity moderated the association of informational support for Asian women's reports of their mental health. DISCUSSION: For clinicians, assessing individuals' emotional support is important for maintaining or increasing physical and mental health. Clinicians can also assess Asian women's stress, providing informational support accordingly as too much information could be detrimental to their health. For researchers, the inclusion of emotional support items is the most important.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".