Sources of social support associated with health and quality of life: a cross-sectional study among Canadian and Latin American older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the association between emotional support and indicators of health and quality of life differs between Canadian and Latin American older adults. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of the International Mobility in Aging Study (IMIAS). Social support from friends, family members, children and partner was measured with a previously validated social network and support scale (IMIAS-SNSS). Low social support was defined as ranking in the lowest site-specific quartile. Prevalence ratios (PR) of good health, depression and good quality of life were estimated with Poisson regression models, adjusting for age, gender, education, income and disability in activities of daily living. SETTING: Kingston and Saint-Hyacinthe in Canada, Manizales in Colombia and Natal in Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: 1600 community-dwelling adults aged 65-74 years, n=400 at each site. OUTCOME MEASURES: Likert scale question on self-rated health, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale and 10-point analogical quality-of-life (QoL) scale. RESULTS: Relationships between social support and study outcomes differed between Canadian and Latin American older adults. Among Canadians, those without a partner had a lower prevalence of good health (PR=0.90; 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98), and those with high support from friends had a higher prevalence of good health (PR=1.09; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.18). Among Latin Americans, depression was lower among those with high levels of support from family (PR=0.63; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.83), children (PR=0.60; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.80) and partner (PR=0.57; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.77); good QoL was associated with high levels of support from children (PR=1.54; 95% CI 1.20 to 1.99) and partner (PR=1.31; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.67). CONCLUSIONS: Among older adults, different sources of support were relevant to health across societies. Support from friends and having a partner were related to good health in Canada, whereas in Latin America, support from family, children and partner were associated with less depression and better QoL.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".