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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Archives of gerontology and geriatrics 2018-11, Vol.79, p.176-184
Hauptverfasser: Dahlberg, Lena, McKee, Kevin J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 184
container_issue
container_start_page 176
container_title Archives of gerontology and geriatrics
container_volume 79
creator Dahlberg, Lena
McKee, Kevin J.
description •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.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.archger.2018.08.007
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_swepu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_swepub_primary_oai_swepub_ki_se_485269</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0167494318301705</els_id><sourcerecordid>2114700904</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c573t-db03dd3e1d7273dfeba41dd58875f49036b7e463ca33e721b8b15944e5f85c483</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkktv1DAQgC0EokvhJ4ByRKJZxrETOydUlfIQlTjwuFqOPVm8ZOPFXlP498xqt-VUVRp5LOv7Zix7GHvOYcmBd6_XS5vcjxWmZQNcL4EC1AO24Fo1dder7iFbEKdq2Utxwp7kvAYACU33mJ0ISm3PxYJ9-hJdsFOFf9xUcohzZWdfXeM01QOGeVXZTaQ1Th5TZX2ZdrkKc5VKImmPljRYkhLa_JQ9Gu2U8dkxn7Jv7y6_Xnyorz6__3hxflW7Vold7QcQ3gvkXjVK-BEHK7n3rdaqHWUPohsUyk44KwSqhg964G0vJbajbp3U4pTVh7r5GrdlMNsUNjb9NdEGczz6STs0UrdN1xPf38lvU_T_pRuRi150XAMn9-xO9234fm5iWplcDO8azgXhr-7HfTGNFg0Q_fJA0y1-Fcw7swnZ0dvbGWPJhkpKBdCDJLQ9oC7FnBOOt6U5mP1AmLU5DoTZD4QBClDkvTi2KMMG_a11MwEEvDkASD_2O5CeXcDZoQ8J3c74GO5p8Q_YkMqi</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2114700904</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Social exclusion and well-being among older adults in rural and urban areas</title><source>SWEPUB Freely available online</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Dahlberg, Lena ; McKee, Kevin J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Dahlberg, Lena ; McKee, Kevin J.</creatorcontrib><description>•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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-4943</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1872-6976</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-6976</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.archger.2018.08.007</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30265913</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Community ; Life satisfaction ; Medicin och hälsovetenskap ; Neighbourhood ; Older people ; Quality of life ; Rural ; Social exclusion ; Social exkludering av äldre på före detta industriorter ; Urban ; Well-being</subject><ispartof>Archives of gerontology and geriatrics, 2018-11, Vol.79, p.176-184</ispartof><rights>2018 The Authors</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c573t-db03dd3e1d7273dfeba41dd58875f49036b7e463ca33e721b8b15944e5f85c483</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c573t-db03dd3e1d7273dfeba41dd58875f49036b7e463ca33e721b8b15944e5f85c483</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7685-3216</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2018.08.007$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,552,780,784,885,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30265913$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:du-28320$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-162113$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://kipublications.ki.se/Default.aspx?queryparsed=id:139361801$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dahlberg, Lena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKee, Kevin J.</creatorcontrib><title>Social exclusion and well-being among older adults in rural and urban areas</title><title>Archives of gerontology and geriatrics</title><addtitle>Arch Gerontol Geriatr</addtitle><description>•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.</description><subject>Community</subject><subject>Life satisfaction</subject><subject>Medicin och hälsovetenskap</subject><subject>Neighbourhood</subject><subject>Older people</subject><subject>Quality of life</subject><subject>Rural</subject><subject>Social exclusion</subject><subject>Social exkludering av äldre på före detta industriorter</subject><subject>Urban</subject><subject>Well-being</subject><issn>0167-4943</issn><issn>1872-6976</issn><issn>1872-6976</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>D8T</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkktv1DAQgC0EokvhJ4ByRKJZxrETOydUlfIQlTjwuFqOPVm8ZOPFXlP498xqt-VUVRp5LOv7Zix7GHvOYcmBd6_XS5vcjxWmZQNcL4EC1AO24Fo1dder7iFbEKdq2Utxwp7kvAYACU33mJ0ISm3PxYJ9-hJdsFOFf9xUcohzZWdfXeM01QOGeVXZTaQ1Th5TZX2ZdrkKc5VKImmPljRYkhLa_JQ9Gu2U8dkxn7Jv7y6_Xnyorz6__3hxflW7Vold7QcQ3gvkXjVK-BEHK7n3rdaqHWUPohsUyk44KwSqhg964G0vJbajbp3U4pTVh7r5GrdlMNsUNjb9NdEGczz6STs0UrdN1xPf38lvU_T_pRuRi150XAMn9-xO9234fm5iWplcDO8azgXhr-7HfTGNFg0Q_fJA0y1-Fcw7swnZ0dvbGWPJhkpKBdCDJLQ9oC7FnBOOt6U5mP1AmLU5DoTZD4QBClDkvTi2KMMG_a11MwEEvDkASD_2O5CeXcDZoQ8J3c74GO5p8Q_YkMqi</recordid><startdate>20181101</startdate><enddate>20181101</enddate><creator>Dahlberg, Lena</creator><creator>McKee, Kevin J.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>ADTPV</scope><scope>AOWAS</scope><scope>D8T</scope><scope>ZZAVC</scope><scope>ABAVF</scope><scope>DG7</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7685-3216</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20181101</creationdate><title>Social exclusion and well-being among older adults in rural and urban areas</title><author>Dahlberg, Lena ; McKee, Kevin J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c573t-db03dd3e1d7273dfeba41dd58875f49036b7e463ca33e721b8b15944e5f85c483</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Community</topic><topic>Life satisfaction</topic><topic>Medicin och hälsovetenskap</topic><topic>Neighbourhood</topic><topic>Older people</topic><topic>Quality of life</topic><topic>Rural</topic><topic>Social exclusion</topic><topic>Social exkludering av äldre på före detta industriorter</topic><topic>Urban</topic><topic>Well-being</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dahlberg, Lena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKee, Kevin J.</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>SwePub</collection><collection>SwePub Articles</collection><collection>SWEPUB Freely available online</collection><collection>SwePub Articles full text</collection><collection>SWEPUB Stockholms universitet full text</collection><collection>SWEPUB Stockholms universitet</collection><jtitle>Archives of gerontology and geriatrics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dahlberg, Lena</au><au>McKee, Kevin J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Social exclusion and well-being among older adults in rural and urban areas</atitle><jtitle>Archives of gerontology and geriatrics</jtitle><addtitle>Arch Gerontol Geriatr</addtitle><date>2018-11-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>79</volume><spage>176</spage><epage>184</epage><pages>176-184</pages><issn>0167-4943</issn><issn>1872-6976</issn><eissn>1872-6976</eissn><abstract>•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.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>30265913</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.archger.2018.08.007</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7685-3216</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0167-4943
ispartof Archives of gerontology and geriatrics, 2018-11, Vol.79, p.176-184
issn 0167-4943
1872-6976
1872-6976
language eng
recordid cdi_swepub_primary_oai_swepub_ki_se_485269
source SWEPUB Freely available online; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Community
Life satisfaction
Medicin och hälsovetenskap
Neighbourhood
Older people
Quality of life
Rural
Social exclusion
Social exkludering av äldre på före detta industriorter
Urban
Well-being
title Social exclusion and well-being among older adults in rural and urban areas
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T07%3A15%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_swepu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Social%20exclusion%20and%20well-being%20among%20older%20adults%20in%20rural%20and%20urban%20areas&rft.jtitle=Archives%20of%20gerontology%20and%20geriatrics&rft.au=Dahlberg,%20Lena&rft.date=2018-11-01&rft.volume=79&rft.spage=176&rft.epage=184&rft.pages=176-184&rft.issn=0167-4943&rft.eissn=1872-6976&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.archger.2018.08.007&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_swepu%3E2114700904%3C/proquest_swepu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2114700904&rft_id=info:pmid/30265913&rft_els_id=S0167494318301705&rfr_iscdi=true