Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-dfw9g Total loading time: 0.595 Render date: 2022-08-11T17:49:09.550Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

The Role of Partnership Status on Late-Life Physical Function*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2014

Sean A. P. Clouston*
Affiliation:
Program in Public Health and Department of Preventive Medicine, Stony Brook University
Andrea Lawlor
Affiliation:
Center for the Study of Democratic Citizenship, McGill University, and Institute for Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley
Ashton M. Verdery
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
*
Correspondence and requests for offprints should be sent to /La correspondance et les demandes de tirés-à-part doivent être adressées à : Sean Clouston, Ph.D. Program in Public Health Health Sciences Center 3-071 Stony Brook University Stony Brook, NY 11794-8338, U.S.A. (sean.clouston@stonybrookmedicine.edu)

Abstract

This study examined the socioeconomic pathways linking partnership status to physical functioning, assessed using objective measures of late life physical functioning, including peak flow and grip strength. Using Wave 4 of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), we ran multilevel models to examine the relationship between partnership status and physical function in late life, adjusting for social-network characteristics, socioeconomic factors, and health behaviours. We found a robust relationship between partnership status and physical function. Incorporating social-network characteristics, socioeconomic factors, and health behaviours showed independent robust relationships with physical function. Co-variates attenuated the impact of cohabitation, separation, and widowhood on physical function; robust effects were found for singlehood and divorce. Sex-segregated analyses suggest that associations between cohabitation, singlehood, divorce, and widowhood were larger for men than for women. Results suggest that social ties are important to improved physical function.

Résumé

Cette étude a examiné les voies socio-économiques reliant le statut de partenariat pour le fonctionnement physique en fin de vie, mesuré à l'aide des moyens objectifs, y compris le débit de pointe et la force de préhension. Utilisant la vague 4 de l’enquête SHARE sur la santé, le vieillissement et la retraite en Europe, nous avons couru des modèles multi-niveaux pour examiner la relation entre le statut de partenariat et la fonctionnement physique en fin de vie, en ajustant les caractéristiques des réseaux sociaux, les facteurs socio-économiques et les comportements sanitaires. Nous avons trouvé une relation forte entre le statut de partenariat et le fonctionnement physique. L'incorporation des caractéristiques des réseaux sociaux, des facteurs socio-économiques et des comportements de santé ont montré de relations indépendantes et solides avec le fonctionnement physique. La covariance a atténué l'impact de la cohabitation, la séparation, le veuvage sur la fonction physique; des effets robustes ont été trouvés pour le célibat et le divorce. Analyses séparées par sexe suggèrent que les associations entre la cohabitation, le célibat, le divorce et le veuvage sont plus pour les hommes que pour les femmes. Les résultats indiquent que les liens sociaux sont importants pour l'amélioration du fonctionnement physique.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 2014 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Sean Clouston was supported by funding from the U.S. National Institute on Aging (P01 AG043362). Andrea Lawlor is supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). Ashton Verdery would like to thank the Duke Network Analysis Center and the Department of Sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for support during the time this study was conducted. This study used data from SHARE Wave 4 release 1.1.1, as of March 28, 2013. The SHARE data collection has been primarily funded by the European Commission through the 5th Framework Programme (project QLK6-CT-2001-00360 in the thematic programme Quality of Life), through the 6th Framework Programme (projects SHARE-I3, RII-CT-2006-062193, COMPARE, CIT5- CT-2005-028857, and SHARELIFE, CIT4-CT-2006-028812) and through the 7th Framework Programme (SHARE-PREP, No. 211909, SHARE-LEAP, No. 227822, and SHARE M4, No. 261982). Additional funding from the U.S. National Institute on Aging (U01 AG09740-13S2, P01 AG005842, P01 AG08291, P30 AG12815, R21 AG025169, Y1-AG-4553-01, IAG BSR06-11, and OGHA 04-064) and the German Ministry of Education and Research as well as from various national sources is gratefully acknowledged (see www.share-project.org for a full list of funding institutions). The funders played no role in the completion of this study.

References

Albert, M. S., Jones, K., Savage, C. R., Berkman, L., Seeman, T., & Blazer, D. (1995). Predictors of cognitive change in older persons: MacArthur studies of successful aging. Psychology and Aging, 10(4), 578589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 12691287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angevaren, M., Aufdemkampe, G., Verhaar, H., Aleman, A., & Vanhees, L. (2008). Physical activity and enhanced fitness to improve cognitive function in older people without known cognitive impairment. Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online), 16(3), 173.Google Scholar
Atkins, D. C. (2005). Using multilevel models to analyze couple and family treatment data: Basic and advanced issues. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(1), 98110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, L. L., De Leon, C. M., Wilson, R. S., Bienias, J. L., & Evans, D. A. (2004). Social resources and cognitive decline in a population of older African Americans and whites. Neurology, 63(12), 23222326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaujot, R. (2000). Earning and caring in Canadian families. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Berkman, L. F., Glass, T., Brissette, I., & Seeman, T. E. (2000). From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Social Science & Medicine, 51(6), 843857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börsch-Supan, A., Brandt, M., Hunkler, C., Kneip, T., Korbmacher, J., & Malter, F. (2013). Data Resource Profile: The Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). International Journal of Epidemiology, 42(4), 9921001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunner, E., Shipley, M., Spencer, V., Kivimaki, M., Chandola, T., & Gimeno, D., et al. (2009). Social inequality in walking speed in early old age in the Whitehall II study. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 64(10), 1082.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buchner, D. M., & Wagner, E. H. (1992). Preventing frail health. Clinics in Geriatric Medicine, 8(1), 1.Google ScholarPubMed
Callaghan, P., & Morrissey, J. (2008). Social support and health: A review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18(2), 203210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carr, D., & Springer, K. W. (2010). Advances in families and health research in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 743761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheung, Y. B. (2000). Marital status and mortality in British women: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 29(1), 9399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2007). The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. New England Journal of Medicine, 357(4), 370379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2008). The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network. New England Journal of Medicine, 358(21), 22492258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clouston, S., Brewster, P., Kuh, D., Richards, M., Cooper, R., & Hardy, R. (2013). The dynamic relationship between physical function and cognition in longitudinal aging cohorts. Epidemiologic Reviews, 35(1), 3350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clouston, S., Kuh, D., Herd, P., Elliott, J., Richards, M., & Hofer, S. M. (2012). Benefits of educational attainment on adult fluid cognition: International evidence from three birth cohorts. International Journal of Epidemiology, 41(6), 17291736.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clouston, S., & Quesnel-Vallée, A. (2012). The role of defamilialization in the relationship between partnership and self-rated health: A cross-national comparison of Canada and the United States. Social Science & Medicine, 75, 13421350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cockerham, W. C. (2005). Health lifestyle theory and the convergence of agency and structure. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46(1), 5167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cockerham, W. C. (2007). Social causes of health and disease. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, S., & Janicki-Deverts, D. (2009). Can we improve our physical health by altering our social networks? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 375378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, R., Hardy, R., Sayer, A. A., Ben-Shlomo, Y., Birnie, K., & Cooper, C. (2011a). Age and gender differences in physical capability levels from mid-life onwards: The harmonisation and meta-analysis of data from eight UK cohort studies. PLoS ONE, 6(11), 114. doi:0.1371/journal.pone.0027899.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, R., Kuh, D., Cooper, C., Gale, C. R., Lawlor, D. A., & Matthews, F. (2011b). Objective measures of physical capability and subsequent health: a systematic review. Age and Ageing, 40(1), 1423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, R., Kuh, D., & Hardy, R. (2010). Objectively measured physical capability levels and mortality: Systematic review and meta-analysis. British Medical Journal, 341(25), 639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diez-Roux, A. V. (1998). Bringing context back into epidemiology: Variables and fallacies in multilevel analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 88(2), 216622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dumurgier, J., Elbaz, A., Ducimetière, P., Tavernier, B., Alpérovitch, A., & Tzourio, C. (2009). Slow walking speed and cardiovascular death in well functioning older adults: Prospective cohort study. British Medical Journal, 339(b4460), 17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duncan, G., Wilkerson, B., & England, P. (2006). Cleaning up their act: The effects of marriage and cohabitation on licit and illicit drug use. Demography, 43(4), 691710.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franklin, N. C., & Tate, C. A. (2009). Lifestyle and successful aging: An overview. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 3(1), 611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gahler, M. (2006). “To divorce is to die a bit … ”: A longitudinal study of marital disruption and psychological distress among Swedish women and men. The Family Journal, 14(4), 372382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, N. (1993). Marriage selection and mortality patterns: Inferences and fallacies. Demography, 30(2), 189208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gove, W. (1973). Sex, marital status, and mortality. American Journal of Sociology, 79(1), 4567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hewitt, B., & Turrell, G. (2011). Short-term functional health and well-being after marital separation: Does initiator status make a difference? American Journal of Epidemiology, 173(11), 13081318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofer, S. M., Berg, S., & Era, P. (2003). Evaluating the interdependence of aging-related changes in visual and auditory acuity, balance, and cognitive functioning. Psychology and Aging, 18(2), 285305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS mMicine, 7(7), e1000316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hurst, L., Stafford, M., Cooper, R., Hardy, R., Richards, M., & Kuh, D. (2013). Lifetime socioeconomic inequalities in physical and cognitive aging. American Journal of Public Health, 103(9), 16411648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological Bulletin, 127(4), 472503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krieger, N. (2005). Embodying inequality: Epidemiologic perspectives. Amityville, NY: Baywood.Google Scholar
Krueger, K. R., Wilson, R. S., Kamenetsky, J. M., Barnes, L. L., Bienias, J. L., & Bennett, D. A. (2009). Social engagement and cognitive function in old age. Experimental Aging Research, 35(1), 4560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuh, D., Cooper, R., Hardy, R., Richards, M., & Ben Shlomo, Y. (2014). A life course approach to healthy ageing. London, UK: Oxford University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Lichter, D., LeClere, F. B., & McLaughlin, D. K. (1991). Local marriage markets and the marital behavior of Black and White women. The American Journal of Sociology, 96(4), 843867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Link, B. G. (2008). Epidemiological sociology and the social shaping of population health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 49(4), 367384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (1995). Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35(Extra Issue), 8094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2009). The social shaping of health and smoking. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 104(Supplement 1), S6–S10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2010). Social conditions as fundamental causes of health inequalities. In Bird, C., Conrad, P., Fremont, A., & Timmermans, S. (Eds.), Handbook of Medical Sociology (6th ed., pp. 317). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
Liu, H., & Reczek, C. (2012). Cohabitation and US adult mortality: An examination by gender and race. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(4), 794811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maas, C. J., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1(3), 8692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mare, R. (2008). Educational assortative mating in two generations. Retrieved 1 August 2013 fromwww.econ.ucla.edu/workshops/papers/History/mare_eam_08.pdf.
Ménard, F-P. (2011). What makes it fall apart? The determinants of the dissolution of marriages and common-law unions in Canada. McGill Sociological Review, 2(1), 5976.Google Scholar
Murray, E. T., & Stafford, M. (2013). Lifetime lifestyles III: where we live, the life course and ageing. In Kuh, D., Cooper, R., Hardy, R., Richards, M., & Ben Shlomo, Y. (Eds.), A life course approach to healthy ageing (pp. 246260). London, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paterson, D. H., & Warburton, D. E. (2010). Review Physical activity and functional limitations in older adults: a systematic review related to Canada’s Physical Activity Guidelines. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 7(38), 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peeters, G., Dobson, A. J., Deeg, D. J., & Brown, W. J. (2013). A life-course perspective on physical functioning in women. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 91(9), 661670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phelan, J. C., & Link, B. G. (2013). Fundamental cause theory. In Cockerham, W. (Ed.), Medical sociology on the move, (105125). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinquart, M., & Duberstein, P. R. (2010). Associations of social networks with cancer mortality: A meta-analysis. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology, 75(2), 122137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rantanen, T., Volpato, S., Ferrucci, L., Heikkinen, E., Fried, L. P., & Guralnik, J. M. (2003). Handgrip strength and cause-specific and total mortality in older disabled women: Exploring the mechanism. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 51(5), 636641.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reczek, C. (2012). The promotion of unhealthy habits in gay, lesbian, and straight intimate partnerships. Social Science & Medicine, 75(6), 11141121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russo, A., Onder, G., Cesari, M., Zamboni, V., Barillaro, C., & Capoluongo, E. (2006). Lifetime occupation and physical function: A prospective cohort study on persons aged 80 years and older living in a community. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(7), 438442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scafato, E., Galluzzo, L., Gandin, C., Ghirini, S., Baldereschi, M., & Capurso, A. (2008). Marital and cohabitation status as predictors of mortality: A 10-year follow-up of an Italian elderly cohort. Social Science & Medicine, 67(9), 14561464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stern, Y. (2002). What is cognitive reserve? Theory and research application of the reserve concept. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 8, 448460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stern, Y. (2009). Cognitive reserve. Neuropsychologia, 47(10), 20152028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stolzenberg, R. M., & Waite, L. (2005). Effects of marriage, divorce, and widowhood on health. In Bianchi, S. M., Casper, L. M., & King, R. B. (Eds.), Work, family, health, and well-being (pp. 361378)., Mayway N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. D., Buchner, D., Piña, I. L., Balady, G. J., Williams, M. A., & Marcus, B. H. (2003). Exercise and physical activity in the prevention and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, 23(8), e42–e49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trovato, F. (1987). A longitudinal analysis of divorce and suicide in Canada. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 49(1), 193203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trovato, F. (1991). Sex, marital status, and suicide in Canada: 1951-1981. Sociological Perspectives, 34(4), 427445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trovato, F. (1998). Nativity, marital status and mortality in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 35(1), 6591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trovato, F., & Lauris, G. (1989). Marital status and mortality in Canada: 1951-1981. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51(4), 907922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umberson, D., Crosnoe, R., & Reczek, C. (2010). Social relationships and health behavior across life course. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 139157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Unger, J. B., McAvay, G., Bruce, M. L., Berkman, L., & Seeman, T. (1999). Variation in the impact of social network characteristics on physical functioning in elderly persons: MacArthur Studies of Successful Aging. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 54B(5), S245–S251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urquia, M. L., O’Campo, P. J., & Ray, J. G. (2012). Marital status, duration of cohabitation, and psychosocial well-being among childbearing women: A Canadian nationwide survey. American Journal of Public Health, 103(2), e8–e15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valente, T. W. (2012). Network interventions. Science, 337(6090), 4953.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valenzuela, M. J., Sachdev, P., Wen, W., Chen, X., & Brodaty, H. (2008). Lifespan mental activity predicts diminished rate of hippocampal atrophy. PLoS ONE, 3(7), e2598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Borst, B., Koster, A., Yu, B., Gosker, H. R., Meibohm, B., & Bauer, D. C. (2011). Is age-related decline in lean mass and physical function accelerated by obstructive lung disease or smoking? Thorax, 66(11), 961969.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waite, L. (1995). Does marriage matter? Demography, 32(4), 483507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waite, L., & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage: Why married people are happier, healthier, and better off financially. New York, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Warburton, D. E., Gledhill, N., & Quinney, A. (2001a). Musculoskeletal fitness and health. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, 26(2), 217237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warburton, D. E., Gledhill, N., & Quinney, A. (2001b). The effects of changes in musculoskeletal fitness on health. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, 26(2), 161216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, K., & Umberson, D. (2004). Marital status, marital transitions, and health: A gendered life course perspective. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45(1), 8198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Z. (2000). Cohabitation: An alternative form of family living. Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Xue, Q-L. (2011). The frailty syndrome: definition and natural history. Clinics in Geriatric Medicine, 27(1), 115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yen, I. H., Michael, Y. L., & Perdue, L. (2009). Neighborhood environment in studies of health of older adults: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 37(5), 455463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zunzunegui, M-V., Alvarado, B. E., Del Ser, T., & Otero, A. (2003). Social networks, social integration, and social engagement determine cognitive decline in community-dwelling Spanish older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58(2), S93–S100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Role of Partnership Status on Late-Life Physical Function*
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Role of Partnership Status on Late-Life Physical Function*
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Role of Partnership Status on Late-Life Physical Function*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *