MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3188941283 · doi:10.82308/39109

The influence of low social support and living alone on premature mortality and hospital utilization among aging Canadians

2019· article· en· W3188941283 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kelly Ann Renwick

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerontologySocial supportMedicineDemographyPsychologyEnvironmental healthSociologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first phase of the research involved analyses of a linked database of a large sample of Canadians surveyed in 2001 as part of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) 1.1 and followed up with recorded death events to December 31, 2011 and hospitalizations to March 31, 2004. Analyses were stratified by two age groups, 55 – 64 (n=6,822) and 65 and older (n=8,966), owing to differing patterns of mortality and health care utilization for these age divisions. Social support measures operationalized several support constructs of interest, including tangible support, affection, emotional and informational support, positive social interactions, living alone, and sense of belonging. Key covariates included sex, age, income, smoking, and a frailty index. In adjusted analyses, compared to adults with the highest levels of support, adults 55 – 64 with low levels of affection had elevated mortality risk (Hazard Ratio (HR) of 1.37 (1.07, 1.75 95% CI)). Effect estimates were similar for low positive social interactions (HR of 1.36 (1.06, 1.75 95% CI)), and low emotional/informational support (HR of 1.36 (1.06, 1.74 95% CI)). Adults 65 and older also had increased mortality risk with low levels of affection (HR of 1.17 (104, 1.31 95% CI)), low positive social interactions (HR of 1.20 (1.07, 1.34 95% CI)), and low emotional/ informational support (HR of 1.19 (1.06, 1.33 95% CI)). Tangible support and living alone were not consistently associated with mortality risk in adjusted analyses which is in keeping with past studies suggesting that tangible support might increase in response to very poor health, and living alone may not inherently put older individuals at risk for mortality. More than one third of respondents 55 – 64 (36.86%) were admitted to hospital over the morbidity follow-up period, and more than half of respondents 65 and older had admissions (54.52%). Hospitalization is not infrequent in older Canadians, especially those over 65. There was a modest signal for elevated odds of hospital admission for adults 65 and older with a weak sense of belonging (Odds Ratio of 1.14 (1.02, 1.28 95% CI)), but otherwise social support variables were not generally associated with an increased risk of admission.Low positive social interactions and living alone were associated with the number of hospital admissions in the younger age group (Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) of 1.46 (1.08, 1.97 95% CI) and IRR of 1.22 (1.01, 1.48 95% CI) respectively). Respondents reporting low positive social interactions had a predicted number of admissions nearly one and a half times that of respondents reporting the highest positive social interactions. Those living alone had a predicted number of admissions nearly one and a quarter times those living with others. Tangible support, affection, and emotional/informational support were not generally associated with an increased number of admissions in either age group. Low positive social interactions (IRR of 1.73 (1.21, 2.51 95% CI)), low emotional/ informational support (IRR of 1.45 (1.01, 2,05 95% CI)) and living alone (IRR of 1.32 (1.06, 1.65 95% CI)) were all associated with length of stay in hospital in fully adjusted models among the younger cohort. Low levels of affection (IRR of 1.31 (1.08, 1.58 95% CI)), low positive social interactions (IRR of 1.31 (1.07, 1.57 95% CI)), low emotional/informational support (IRR of 1.34 (1.09, 1.61 95% CI)), and a weak sense of belonging (IRR of 1.13 (1,01, 1.27 95% CI)) were all associated with length of stay among the older cohort. Indeed it was length of stay that was the hospitalization measure that was particularly sensitive to multiple social support constructs, suggesting that low social support is implicated in discharge decisions and readmissions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→