Do Living Arrangements and Social Network Influence the Mental Health Status of Older Adults in Malaysia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Living arrangement has been reported to have a significant influence on several mental health statuses of older adults, but their social network may confound this association. This study is aimed at examining the interactive effect of living arrangements and social network on the mental health status among older adults in Malaysia. A total of 2,188 Malaysian older adults living nationwide were included in this cross-sectional study. Participants were classified into four groups according to their living arrangements (living alone or not living alone) and social network size (assessed using Lubben's Social Network Scale-6). Poor social network was defined as the lowest quartile (fourth quartile) of the score. Mental health statuses, which include flourishing in life, life satisfaction, cognitive functions, loneliness, depression, and perceived stress, were measured. Multiple linear regression models, adjusted for age, gender, education, and comorbidities, revealed that a good social network was significantly associated with an increase on the flourishing scale scores, regardless of living arrangements. Not living alone and having good social network was significantly associated with increased Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores and decreased loneliness scores. This study found that living arrangements are not always a risk factor for the mental health status of older adults. However, it may be confounded by the level of their social networks. The results suggested that the effects of social network may exceed the impact of living arrangements. It is recommended that health professionals pay more attention to the social networks of older Malaysians to harness its benefits in improving their mental health status.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".