Social exclusion and well-being among older adults in rural and urban areas
•On most indicators, social exclusion was associated with rural/urban residence.•Higher levels of social exclusion were associated with lower well-being.•Seven social exclusion indicators were significant in an urban model of well-being.•Five social exclusion indicators were significant in a rural m...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Archives of gerontology and geriatrics 2018-11, Vol.79, p.176-184 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | •On most indicators, social exclusion was associated with rural/urban residence.•Higher levels of social exclusion were associated with lower well-being.•Seven social exclusion indicators were significant in an urban model of well-being.•Five social exclusion indicators were significant in a rural model of well-being.•Neighbourhood exclusion significantly improved rural and urban models of well-being.
Social exclusion (SE) is a process that limits participation in society across life domains, and is associated with poor quality of life. Neighbourhood exclusion has been identified as particularly important for older adults. This paper examines the association between SE and well-being in older adults from urban and rural areas, focusing on neighbourhood exclusion.
Using a cross-sectional survey design with a stratified sampling frame, participants (aged 65+) from rural (n = 628) and urban (n = 627) areas of Barnsley, United Kingdom, completed a questionnaire containing indicators of five SE domains: civic activity, material resources, social relationships, services and neighbourhood. Sequential multiple regression models were developed for 1) total sample; 2) rural areas; and 3) urban areas, with well-being regressed on SE indicators after controlling for self-reported health.
SE indicators explained 13.4% of the variance in well-being in the total sample (of which neighbourhood exclusion explained 1.2%); corresponding figures for the rural model were 13.8% (3.8%) and for the urban model 18.0% (1.7%); the addition of neighbourhood exclusion significantly improved all three models. Five SE indicators were significant in the rural model, compared with seven in the urban model, with four common to both.
Neighbourhood exclusion explained more variance in well-being in rural than urban areas, whereas exclusion from services explained more variance in urban than rural areas. Area characteristics and the role of neighbourhood should be considered in policy initiatives to reduce SE and promote well-being. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0167-4943 1872-6976 1872-6976 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.archger.2018.08.007 |