Social cohesion and belonging predict the well-being of community-dwelling older people

BMC Geriatrics

Anna P Nieboer¹  Jane M Cramm¹ 

[1] Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, Rotterdam 3000 DR, the Netherlands

关键词: Physical well-being;    Social well-being;    Community;    Social production function;    Neighborhood social deprivation;   

Others  :  1139911
DOI  :  10.1186/s12877-015-0027-y

 received in 2014-10-14, accepted in 2015-03-04,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The neighborhood social environment has been identified as an important aspect of older people’s well-being. Poor neighborhood conditions can pose difficulties in obtaining support, especially for older people who live alone. Although social environments have been found to be related to well-being among older people, the longitudinal relationship between the social environment and well-being remains poorly undestood. Research on the effects of changes in neighborhood characteristics, such as social cohesion and social belonging, on well-being is lacking. Therefore, the study aims are (i) describe social cohesion, social belonging, and instrumental goals to achieve well-being among community-dwelling older people, (ii) determine whether these factors varied according to neighborhood social deprivation and compare these findings to those from chronically ill/previously hospitalized older people, and (iii) identify longitudinal relationships between social cohesion and belonging and well-being.

Methods

Independently living Dutch older adults (aged ≥ 70 years) were asked to complete questionnaires in 2011 (T0) and 2013 (T1). Response rates at T0 and T1 were 66% (945/1440) and 62% (588/945), respectively. Descriptive statistics, paired sample t-tests, analysis of variance, univariate analyses and multilevel regression analyses controlling for background characteristics and baseline well-being were performed.

Results

Of 945 respondents [43% male; mean age, 77.5 ± 5.8 (range, 70–101) years], 34.7% were married and 83.3% were Dutch natives. Social cohesion remained constant over time, whereas social belonging improved (p ≤ 0.05). Older people living in socially deprived neighborhoods report poorer overall well-being and instrumental goals to achieve well-being. Baseline social cohesion, changes therein (both p ≤ .001), baseline social belonging, and changes therein (both p ≤ .05) predicted well-being at T1.

Conclusion

This study showed that social cohesion, belonging, and changes therein predict the social as well as physical well-being of community-dwelling older people in the Netherlands over time. The creation of stronger ties among neighbors and a sense of belonging is needed.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Cramm and Nieboer; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division: World population ageing: 1950–2050. United Nations Publications, New York; 2001.
• [2]Nieboer AP. Sustainable care in a time of crisis. Inaugural lecture, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, November 1, 2013.
• [3]Diener E: Subjective well-being. Psychol Bull 1984, 95:542-75.
• [4]Watson D: The vicissitudes of mood measurement: effects of varying descriptors, time frames, and response formats on measures of positive and negative affect. J Personal Soc Psychol 1988, 55:128-41.
• [5]Lindenberg S: Continuities in the theory of social production functions. In Verklarende Sociologie; Opstellen Voor Reinhart Wippler. Edited by Ganzeboom H, Lindenberg S. Thesis Publications, Amsterdam; 1996.
• [6]Ormel J, Lindenberg S, Steverink N, Verbrugge LM: Subjective well-being and social production functions. Soc Ind Res 1999, 46:61-90.
• [7]Nieboer A, Lindenberg S, Boomsma A, van Bruggen AC: Dimensions of well-being and their measurement: the SPF-IL scale. Soc Indic Res 2005, 73:313-53.
• [8]Nieboer AP: Life-events and well-being: a prospective study on changes in well-being of elderly people due to a serious illness event or death of the spouse. Thesis Publishers, Amsterdam, NL; 1997.
• [9]Cramm JM, van Dijk HM, Nieboer AP: The importance of neighborhood social cohesion and social capital for the well being of older adults in the community. Gerontologist 2013, 53(Suppl 1):142-52.
• [10]Oswald F, Jopp D, Rott C, Wahl HW: Is aging in place a resource for or risk to life satisfaction? Gerontologist 2011, 51(Suppl 2):238-50.
• [11]Wiles JL, Leibing A, Guberman N, Reeve J, Allen RES. The meaning of “ageing in place” to older people. Gerontologist. 2011. doi:10.1093/geront/gnr098
• [12]Lindstrom M, Merlo J, Ostergren P: Individual and neighbourhood determinants of social participation and social capital: a multilevel analysis of the city of Malmo, Sweden. Soc Sci Med 2002, 54:1779-91.
• [13]Schwirian KP, Schwirian PM: Neighboring, residential satisfaction, and psychological well-being in urban elders. J Commun Psychol 1993, 21:285-99.
• [14]Yasuda N, Zimmerman SI, Hawkes W, Fredman L, Hebel JR, Magaziner J: Relation of social network characteristics to 5-year mortality among young-old versus old-old white women in an urban community. Am J Epidemiol 1997, 145:516-23.
• [15]Thompson EE, Krause N: Living alone and neighborhood characteristics as predictors of social support in late life. J Gerontol: Soc Sci 1998, 53B:354-S364.
• [16]Kellaher L, Peace S, Holland C: Environment, identity and old age–quality of life or a life of quality? In Growing older: quality of life in older age. Edited by Walker A, Hennessy CH. Open University Press, Maidenhead; 2004:60-80.
• [17]Philips DR, Siu OL, Yeh AG O, Cheng KHC: Ageing and the urban environment. In Ageing and place. Edited by Andrews GJ, Philips DR. Routledge, Abingdon; 2005:147-63.
• [18]Cramm JM, Nieboer AP: Relationships between frailty, neighborhood security, social cohesion and sense of belonging among community-dwelling older people. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2013, 13(Suppl 3):759-63.
• [19]Russell C, Hill B, Basser M: Older people’s lives in the inner city: hazardous or rewarding? Aust N Z J Public Health 1998, 22:98-106.
• [20]Harpham T, Grant E, Thomas E: Measuring social capital within health surveys: key issues. Health Policy Plan 2002, 17:106-11.
• [21]Kawachi I, Berkman L: Social cohesion, social capital, and health. In Social epidemiology. Edited by Kawachi I, Berkman L. Oxford University Press, New York; 2000:174-7.
• [22]Lochner K, Kawachi I, Kennedy BP: Social capital: a guide to its measurement. Health Place 1999, 5:259-70.
• [23]Subramanian SV, Lochner KA, Kawachi I: Neighborhood differences in social capital: a compositional artifact or a contextual construct? Health Place 2003, 9:33-44.
• [24]La Gory M, Ward R, Sherman S: The ecology of aging: neighborhood satisfaction in an older population. Sociol Q 1985, 26:405-18.
• [25]Sampson RJ: Local friendship ties and community attachment in mass society: a multilevel systemic model. Am Sociol Rev 1988, 53:766-79.
• [26]Forrest R, Kearns A: Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban Stud 2001, 38:2125-43.
• [27]Völker B, Flap H, Lindenberg S: When are neighbourhoods communities? Community in Dutch neighbourhoods. Eur Sociol Rev 2007, 23(1):99-114.
• [28]Steverink N: When and why frail elderly people give up independent living: the Netherlands as an example. Ageing Soc 2001, 21:45-69.
• [29]Cramm JM, Nieboer AP. Neighborhood attributes security and solidarity promote the well-being of community-dwelling older people in the Netherlands. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2013. doi:10.1111/ggi.12133
• [30]Cramm JM, van Dijk H, Lotters F, van Exel J, Nieboer AP: Evaluation of an integrated neighbourhood approach to improve well-being of frail elderly in a Dutch community: a study protocol. BMC Res Notes 2011, 4:532. BioMed Central Full Text
• [31]Cramm JM, Hartgerink JM, de Vreede PL, Bakker TJ, Steyerberg EW, Mackenbach JP, et al.: The relationship between older adults' self-management abilities, well-being and depression. Eur J Ageing 2012, 4:353-60.
• [32]Fone D, Dunstan F, Lloyd K, Williams G, Watkins J, Palmer S: Does social cohesion modify the association between area income deprivation and mental health? A multilevel analysis. Int J Epidemiol 2007, 36:338-45.
• [33]Fone DL, Farewell DM, Dunstan FD: An ecometric analysis of neighbourhood cohesion. Popul Health Metr 2006, 4:17. BioMed Central Full Text
• [34]Ellaway A, MacIntyre S, Kearns A: Perceptions of place and health in socially contrasting neighbourhoods. Urban Stud 2001, 38:2299-316.
• [35]Macintyre S, Ellaway A, Cummins S: Place effects on health: how can we conceptualise, operationalise and measure them? Soc Sci Med 2002, 55:125-39.
• [36]Statistics Netherlands. Statline. http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/?LA=en. Accessed February 2015.
• [37]Baltes PB, Baltes MM: Psychological perspectives on successful aging: the model of selective optimization with compensation. In Successful aging: perspectives from the behavioral sciences. Edited by Baltes PB, Baltes MM. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1990:1-34.
• [38]Frieling MA, Lindenberg SM, Stokman FN. Collaborative communities through coproduction: Two case studies. Am Rev Public Admin. advance online publication. 2012; doi:10.1177/0275074012456897
• [39]van Dijk H, Cramm JM, Nieboer AP: The experiences of neighbour, volunteer and professional support-givers in supporting community dwelling older people. Health Soc Care Commun 2013, 21(Suppl 2):150-8.
• [40]van Dijk H, Cramm JM, van Exel J, Nieboer AP. The ideal neighbourhood for ageing in place as perceived by frail and non-frail community-dwelling older people. Ageing Soc. 2014; doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X14000622
• [41]Van der Meer M: Productivity among older people in the Netherlands: variations by gender and the sociospatial context in 2002–03. Ageing Soc 2006, 26(Suppl 6):901-23.
• [42]Enquêteonderzoek onder allochtonen. Problemen en oplossingen. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Voorburg/Heerlen. 2005.