Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday August 22 2016, @06:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the marriage-is-good-for-you! dept.

For older adults, having more or closer family members in one's social network decreases his or her likelihood of death, but having a larger or closer group of friends does not, finds a new study that will be presented at the 111th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA).

"We found that older individuals who had more family in their network, as well as older people who were closer with their family were less likely to die," said James Iveniuk, the lead author of the study and a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health. "No such associations were observed for number of or closeness to friends."

[...] In the first wave, these older adults were asked to list up to five of their closest confidants, describe in detail the nature of each relationship, and indicate how close they felt to each person. Excluding spouses, the average number of close confidants named was 2.91, and most older adults perceived high levels of support from their social contacts. Additionally, most respondents were married, in good physical health, and reported not being very lonely.

Iveniuk and co-author L. Philip Schumm, a senior biostatistician at the University of Chicago, found that older adults who reported feeling "extremely close" on average to the non-spousal family members they listed as among their closest confidants had about a six percent risk of mortality within the next five years, compared to approximately a 14 percent risk of mortality among those who reported feeling "not very close" to the family members they listed.

Furthermore, the study found that respondents who listed more non-spousal family members in their network—irrespective of closeness—had lower odds of death compared to those who listed fewer family members. "Regardless of the emotional content of a connection, simply having a social relationship with another person may have benefits for longevity," Iveniuk said.

Iveniuk said he was surprised that feeling closer to one's family members and having more relatives as confidants decreased the risk of death for older adults, but that the same was not true of relationships with friends.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by slinches on Monday August 22 2016, @07:33PM

    by slinches (5049) on Monday August 22 2016, @07:33PM (#391832)

    There's a rather obvious causal chain here. In general, close family will help you as your health is failing in a way that close friends will not. It's built into the social constructs of friends vs family.

    This is why those who choose to forgo building a family of their own should be much more careful about planning for retirement and end-of-life care. They won't have family to fall back on if they eventually need help they can't afford to get otherwise. (not that anyone should intentionally plan to need much more than emotional support from their family)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday August 22 2016, @07:51PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 22 2016, @07:51PM (#391844)

    Hmm perhaps living a life constrained by knowing you won't get help kills you quicker than living a life of relying on others.

    I donno about that. My MiL lives by herself in a giant house and needs a lot of help to keep living there (houses are high maintenance) She's broken a leg tripping over a garden hose, all kinds of stuff like that on a much smaller scale. Its certainly more stressful when the roof leaks and its her problem not the apartment owner's headache.

    On the other hand my childless UncleInLaw lives in a seniors apartment where at some expense he doesn't even have to cook and they help him a bit even with mere tidying up the place. Supposedly that'll kill him quicker than owning a headache house?

    Maybe the only argument I can come up with is the exercise benefits of being a home owning peasant outweigh the acute danger of falling off ladders or WTF? You'd think that living in an apartment and exercising would result in the lowest fatality rate. Still, I wouldn't think aerobic ladder climbing and gutter cleaning would be the ideal form of senior citizen exercise...

    • (Score: 2) by jimshatt on Tuesday August 23 2016, @08:52AM

      by jimshatt (978) on Tuesday August 23 2016, @08:52AM (#392042) Journal
      You're making a weird comparison. Off course people with lots of family, but living in a nuclear disaster zone die quicker than people without family living in a health resort! Unless you're arguing that having family is a factor in the circumstances they live in (e.g. "I'd better go live with my family in the nuclear disaster zone, so I can get help when I need my roof fixed").
  • (Score: 2) by IndigoFreak on Tuesday August 23 2016, @02:48AM

    by IndigoFreak (3415) on Tuesday August 23 2016, @02:48AM (#391979)

    What relationship are these close family members? If they are generally siblings, I would assume that is way different then lets say children. I would think having living siblings would mean that your life expectancy probably hasn't been reached. As in having good genes shared between you all. As your siblings die, that means you are most likely closer to death. I know that age ranges between siblings can very a lot, but I think the logic holds. It could still be true for even for your children. I'm calling this all genetically related, especially since they removed spouses from the family network.

    • (Score: 2) by slinches on Tuesday August 23 2016, @06:41AM

      by slinches (5049) on Tuesday August 23 2016, @06:41AM (#392014)

      There may be a significant genetic component, yes. And I don't have the data to sift through to tease out the relative correlation values. But the titular question from the OP is about what you can do with the information this study provides and we can change our attitudes toward family structures and value. We can't change our genes.

      • (Score: 2) by IndigoFreak on Wednesday August 24 2016, @03:21AM

        by IndigoFreak (3415) on Wednesday August 24 2016, @03:21AM (#392440)

        My point was, if genes are the actual cause of the longevity then strengthening family relationships won't do anything. This study needs more data.