Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T08:46:12.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social network type and informal care use in later life: a comparison of three Dutch birth cohorts aged 75–84

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2017

BIANCA SUANET ,
MARJOLEIN I. BROESE VAN GROENOU  and
THEO G. VAN TILBURG
BIANCA SUANET*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
MARJOLEIN I. BROESE VAN GROENOU
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
THEO G. VAN TILBURG
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
*
Address for correspondence: Bianca Suanet, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands E-mail: b.a.suanet@vu.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent societal changes have increased the salience of non-kin relationships. It can be questioned whether network types that are more strongly non-kin-based give more informal care nowadays. We study how informal care use differs according to network type for three birth cohorts. Data from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (LASA) on older adults aged 75–84 years, interviewed in 1992, 2002 and 2012, respectively (total sample size N = 2,151, analytical sample having functional limitations N = 926). We found four network types: restricted, family-focused with a partner, family-focused without a partner and wider community-focused diverse networks. Wider community-focused diverse networks are more common in the late birth cohort, whereas restricted networks and family-focused networks without a partner are less common. Logistic regression analyses reveal that those in a family-focused network with a partner use informal care more often than those in the other three network types, and insignificant interaction terms show that this does not differ by birth cohort. Irrespective of their network type, those in the late birth cohort use informal care less often. However, after controlling for need, predisposing and context factors, this cohort-difference is no longer significant. We conclude that despite large-scale societal changes, wider community-focused diverse networks do not provide more informal care than before and that among the functionally impaired, the odds of receiving informal care does not decline across birth cohorts.

Keywords

cohort analysissocial changeinformal caresocial networks
Type
Article
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , April 2019 , pp. 749 - 770
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ajrouch, K. J., Akiyama, H. and Antonucci, T. C. 2007. Cohort differences in social relations among the elderly. In Wahl, H.-W., Tesch-Roemer, C. and Hoff, A. (eds), Emergence of New Person–Environment Dynamics in Old Age: A Multidisciplinary Exploration. Baywood, Amityville, New York, 43–64.Google Scholar
Allan, G. 2008. Flexibility, friendship, and family. Personal Relationships, 15, 1, 1–15.Google Scholar
Antonucci, T. C. 1985. Personal characteristics, social support and social behavior. In Shanas, E. and Binstock, R. H. (eds), Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 94–128.Google Scholar
Antonucci, T. C., Ajrouch, K. J. and Birditt, K. S. 2014. The convoy model: explaining social relations from a multidisciplinary perspective. The Gerontologist, 54, 1, 82–92.Google Scholar
Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Sage, London.Google Scholar
Billari, F. and Kohler, H. R. 2004. Patterns of low and lowest-low fertility in Europe. Population Studies, 58, 2, 161–76.Google Scholar
Bowling, A. 2011. Commentary: trends in activity limitation. International Journal of Epidemiology, 40, 4, 549–66.Google Scholar
Broese van Groenou, M. I. and De Boer, A. 2016. Providing informal care in a changing society. European Journal of Ageing, 13, 3, 271–9.Google Scholar
Broese van Groenou, M. I., Glaser, K., Tomassini, C. and Jacobs, T. 2006. Socio-economic status differences in older people's use of informal and formal help: a comparison of four European countries. Ageing & Society, 25, 5, 745–66.Google Scholar
Cantor, M. H. 1980. The informal support system in the lives of the elderly. In Borgatta, E. F. and McCluskey, N. G. (eds) Ageing and Society. Sage, Beverly Hills, California, 111–46.Google Scholar
Cherlin, A. J. 2010. Demographic trends in the United States: a review of research in the 2000's. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 3, 403–19.Google Scholar
Cornwell, B., Laumann, E. O. and Schumm, L. P. 2008. The social connectedness of older adults: a national profile. American Sociological Review, 73, 2, 185–203.Google Scholar
Da Roit, B. 2012. The Netherlands: the struggle between universalism and cost-containment. Health and Social Care in the Community, 20, 3, 228–37.Google Scholar
De Jong-Gierveld, J., Dykstra, P. A. and Schenk, N. 2012. Living arrangements, intergenerational support types and older adult loneliness in Eastern and Western Europe. Demographic Research, 27, 7, 167–99.Google Scholar
Elder, G. H. Jr. 1994. Time, human agency and social change: perspectives on the life course. Social Psychological Quarterly, 57, 1, 4–15.Google Scholar
Fast, J., Keating, N., Otfinowski, P. and Derksen, L. 2004. Characteristics of family/friend care networks of frail seniors. Canadian Journal of Aging, 23, 1, 5–19.Google Scholar
Finch, J. and Mason, J. 1990. Filial obligations and kin support for elderly people. Ageing & Society, 10, 2, 151–75.Google Scholar
Fiori, K. L., Smith, J. and Antonucci, T. C. 2007. Social network types among older adults: a multidimensional approach. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 62, 6, P322–30.Google Scholar
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E. and McHugh, P. R. 1975. ‘Mini-mental state’: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 3, 189–98.Google Scholar
Haberkern, K., Schmid, T. and Szydlik, M. 2015. Gender differences in intergenerational care in European welfare states. Ageing & Society, 35, 2, 298–320.Google Scholar
Hank, K. 2007. Proximity and contacts between older parents and their children: a European comparison. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1, 157–73.Google Scholar
Hoogendijk, E. O., Deeg, D. J. H., Poppelaars, J. L., Van der Horst, M., Broese van Groenou, M. I., Comijs, H. C., Pasman, H. R. W., Van Schoor, N. M., Suanet, B., Thomese, G. C. F., Van Tilburg, T. G., Visser, M. and Huisman, M. 2016. The Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam: cohort update 2016 and major findings. European Journal of Epidemiology, 31, 9, 927–45.Google Scholar
Huisman, M., Poppelaars, , Van der Horst, J., Beekman, A. F. T., Brug, J., Van Tilburg, T. G. and Deeg, D. J. H. 2011. Cohort profile: the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam. International Journal of Epidemiology, 40, 4, 868–76.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R. 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Kahn, R. L. and Antonucci, T. C. 1980. Convoys over the life course: attachment, roles, and social support. In Baltes, P. B. and Brim, O. G. (eds), Life-span Development and Behavior. Academic Press, New York, 253–68.Google Scholar
Kalmijn, M. and Saraceno, C. 2006. A comparative perspective on intergenerational support: responsiveness to parental needs in individual and familialistic countries. European Societies, 10, 3, 479–508.Google Scholar
Katz, S., Ford, A. B., Moskowitz, R. W., Jackson, B. A. and Jaffe, W. F. 1963. Studies of illness in the aged: the index of ADL. Journal of the American Medical Association, 185, 12, 914–9.Google Scholar
Keating, N. C., Otfinowski, P., Wenger, G. C., Fast, J. and Derksen, L. 2003. Understanding the caring capacity of informal networks of frail seniors: a case for care networks. Ageing & Society, 23, 1, 115–27.Google Scholar
Kemper, P. 1992. The use of formal and informal home care by the disabled elderly. Health Service Research, 27, 4, 421–51.Google Scholar
Komter, A. and Vollenbergh, W. 1997. Gift-giving and the emotional significance of family and friends. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59, 3, 747–57.Google Scholar
LaPierre, T. A. and Keating, N. C. 2013. Characteristics and contributions of non-kin carers of older people: a closer look at friends and neighbours. Ageing & Society, 33, 8, 1442–68.Google Scholar
Liebler, C. A. and Sandefur, G. D. 2002. Gender differences in exchange of social support with friends, co-workers at midlife. Social Science Research, 31, 3, 364–91.Google Scholar
Liefbroer, A. C. and Dykstra, P. A. 2000. Levenslopen in verandering: Een studie naar ontwikkelingen in de levenslopen van Nederlanders geboren tussen 1900 en 1970 [Changing Lives: The Life Courses of the 1900–1970 Dutch Birth Cohorts]. Sdu Uitgevers, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Litwin, H. 1998. Support network type and patterns of help giving and receiving among older people. Journal of Social Service Research, 24, 3/4, 83–100.Google Scholar
Litwin, H. 2001. Social network type and morale in old age. The Gerontologist, 41, 4, 516–24.Google Scholar
Mathers, C. M., Stevens, G. A., Boerma, T., White, R. A. and Tobias, M. I. 2015. Causes of international increases in older age life expectancy. The Lancet, 385, 9967, 540–8.Google Scholar
Merz, E.-M. and Huxhold, O. 2010. Well-being depends on social relationship characteristics: comparing different types and providers of support to older adults. Ageing & Society, 30, 5, 843–57.Google Scholar
Messeri, P., Silverstein, M. and Litwak, E. 1993. Choosing optimal support groups: a review and reformulation. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 34, 2, 122–37.Google Scholar
Motel-Klingebiel, A., Tesch-Roemer, C. and Von Kondratowitz, H.-J. 2005. Welfare states do not crowd out the family: evidence for mixed responsibility from comparative analyses. Ageing & Society, 25, 6, 863–82.Google Scholar
Norušis, M. J. 2012. IBM SPSS Statistics 19 Statistical Procedures Companion. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Penning, M. J. 2002. Hydra revisited. Substituting formal for self- and informal in-home care among older adults with disabilities. The Gerontologist, 42, 1, 4–16.Google Scholar
Piccinin, A. M., Muniz-Terrera, G., Clouston, S., Reynolds, C. A., Thordvaldsson, V., Deary, I. J., Deeg, D. J. H., Johansson, B., Mackinnon, A., Spiro, A., Starr, J. M., Skoog, I. and Hofer, S. M. 2013. Coordinated analysis of age, sex, and education effects on change in MMSE Scores. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 68, 3, 374–90.Google Scholar
Riley, M. W., Kahn, R. W. and Foner, A. 1994. Age and the Structural Lag: Society's Failure to Provide Meaningful Opportunities in Work, Family and Leisure. Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Suanet, B. and Antonucci, T. C. 2016. Cohort differences in received social support in later life. Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 72, 4, 706–15.Google Scholar
Suanet, B., Van Tilburg, T. G. and Broese van Groenou, M. I. 2013. Nonkin in older adults’ personal networks: more important among later cohorts? Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 68, 4, 633–43.Google Scholar
Swinkels, J. C., Suanet, B., Deeg, D. J. H. and Broese van Groenou, M. I. 2015. Trends in informal and formal home-care use among older adults in the Netherlands between 1992 and 2012. Ageing & Society, 36, 9, 1870–90.Google Scholar
Van Gool, C. H., Picavet, S. J. and Deeg, D. J. H. 2011. Trends in activity limitation: the Dutch older population between 1990 and 2007. International Journal of Epidemiology, 40, 4, 1056–67.Google Scholar
Van Oorschot, W. and Arts, W. 2005. The social capital of European welfare states: the crowding out hypothesis revisited. Journal of European Social Policy, 15, 1, 5–26.Google Scholar
Wellman, B. 1992. Which types of ties and networks provide what kinds of social support? Advances in Group Processes, 9, 207–35.Google Scholar
Wellman, B. and Worthley, S. 1990. Different strokes from different folks: community ties and social support. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 3, 553–88.Google Scholar
Wenger, G. C. 1991. A network typology: from theory to practice. Journal of Aging Studies, 5, 2, 147–62.Google Scholar
Wenger, G. C. and Shahytahmasebi, S. 1991. Survivors: support network variation and sources of help in rural communities. Journal of Cross-cultural Gerontology, 6, 1, 41–82.Google Scholar