Investigating food insecurity, health lifestyles, and self-rated health of older Canadians living alone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a large number of older of this demographic fact. Although many studies have investigated the association between living arrangements and health, little is known about potential underlying mechanisms regarding how living alone may predict older Canadians' health. In this study, we address this research gap intending to contribute to offering policy suggestions for older Canadians who live alone. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We applied Cockerham's health lifestyle theory to explore to what degree living alone predicts worse health lifestyles and, further, to what degree these lifestyles can explain the association between living alone and older Canadians' health. We used the 2017-2018 Canadian Community Social Survey (Annual Component) which has a response rate of 58.8%. We focused on respondents aged 60 and above, and the analytical sample size is 39,636. RESULTS: Older Canadians living alone are more likely to have food insecurity problems and higher possibilities of smoking cigarettes compared to those living with spouses/partners with or without children. Compared to those living with spouses/partners only, the odds of solo-living older Canadians drinking regularly is significantly lower. There also exists a significant difference between older Canadians living alone and their counterparts living with spouses/partners that the former reported lower self-rated health compared to the latter. Moreover, food insecurity and the three health lifestyle variables are significantly associated with respondents' self-rated health; food insecurity, cigarette smoking, and alcohol drinking can partially explain the difference in self-rated health due to living arrangements. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: According to our findings, health officials are recommended to pay more attention to food insecurity and heavy smoking problems facing older Canadians who live by themselves. Local communities and other stakeholders are suggested to provide older adults living alone with more opportunities for social engagement and involvement since regular drinking may have played such a role in enhancing social life quality of the aged.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".