Do Home and Community Environments Explain Self-Rated Health Among Older Canadians? Evidence From the 2018 Canadian Housing Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study examined the associations between home and community environmental factors and self-rated health (SRH) among older Canadians and how these associations vary by gender and living arrangements. Background: In social gerontology research, the psychosocial determinants of SRH have been widely investigated. Based on the environmental gerontology framework, this study examined the home and community environmental correlates of SRH. METHOD: The sample (aged 60 or older) was drawn from the 2018 Canadian Housing Survey (4,086 men living alone; 6,471 men living with others; 9,170 women living alone; 4,876 women living with others). Multiple regression analyses were used to examine the relationships between SRH and potential environmental correlates in a hierarchical model. RESULTS: Findings show that older men and women living alone reported lower levels of SRH than those living with others. Regression findings show common and unique home and community environmental predictors of SRH by group. Common predictors of higher SRH were private housing residence, larger living space, satisfaction with dwelling, volunteering, no perceived need for community services, and community safety. Home maintenance needs predicted lower SRH among older men and women living with others; uninhabitable conditions predicted poor SRH among older men living with others and older women living alone. CONCLUSION: Results support the important effects of place in terms of home and community environments for older adults' SRH, and associations differed by gender and living arrangements.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".