Housing cost burden and material hardship among older adults: How do they influence psychological health?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite a growing body of evidence for the association between housing cost burden and psychological health, few studies have focused on the potential mediators of this association and the extent to which housing cost burden poses a threat to older adults' psychological health. This study aims to assess (a) the link between housing cost burden and psychological health among older adults and (b) how the association is mediated by material hardship. METHODS: Using thirteen waves of a nationally representative longitudinal study in Korea, this study assessed the association between housing cost burden and depressive symptoms among older adults aged 65 or over. Mediation tests were conducted to identify whether material hardship explains the link between housing cost burden and depressive symptoms. We used fixed-effects models to take into account individual-level heterogeneity. RESULTS: Housing cost burden was significantly associated with depressive symptoms among older adults, regardless of their housing tenure status. Different types of material hardship partially mediated the association between housing cost burden and depressive symptoms in older adults. Older adults with severe housing cost burden are more susceptible to all types of material hardship compared to those with a moderate burden. CONCLUSIONS: To contribute further to the social causation discussions, future studies should seek to identify protective factors of depressive symptoms among older adults and other potential mechanisms of the association between older adults' socioeconomic conditions and their psychological health.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".