Social network typologies moderate the association of loneliness with depressive symptomatology in middle-aged and older adults

Exploring social network typologies and their impact on health and mental well-being in older adults: Evidence from JAGES

BACKGROUND

The types of social networks, their prevalence, and their relationship to health outcomes in older age have been different across countries and cultures. Most of the literature has focused on USA or in European countries and little is known about the social network typologies among older adults from Japan. This study aimed to identify these patterns of social network typologies and examine the differences in sociodemographic and related to health variables.

METHODS

23894 participants from the JAGES project (2019), aged 65 or older (M = 74.74, DT = 6.39) from Japan. Statistical analyses included Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) followed by ANOVAs, Chi square and multinomial logistic regressions tests to compare the profiles.

RESULTS

Four profiles were identified: family (66.9%), spouse (16.6%), diverse (14.5%), and neighbor/others (1.9%). The profiles differ statistically (p < 0.001) in all sociodemographic characteristics and in the means of depression, loneliness, self-perceived health, and happiness. Compared with the "family" network, younger men, with fewer chronic illnesses but higher levels of depression and loneliness were more likely to be in the "spouse" profile, older women with lower socioeconomic status, but less lonely and happier in the "diverse" profile and adults who still working, have lower socioeconomic status and are less happy into the "neighbors/others" group.

DISCUSSION

We discuss the differences between the profiles found, the potential differences with previous studies and the specific cultural Japanese nuances that may explain the characteristics of the network types founded.

Cancer Survivors' and Care Partners' Audio Diaries on Stress and Social Support Resources During the COVID-19 Pandemic

OBJECTIVES

To describe cancer survivors' and care partners' perceived stress and social support during the COVID-19 pandemic and assess the feasibility of audio diaries for assessing role-related needs and resources.

METHODS

Participants (N = 51; n = 28 survivors, n = 23 care partners) recorded three monthly audio diaries reporting stress and support experiences. Diaries were transcribed and content-analyzed using a hybrid approach. Stress-related content was inductively coded, and social support content was deductively coded by type (instrumental, information, emotional, companionship, appraisal; κ = 0.75) then inductively coded. Descriptive statistics summarized sociodemographic data and compared coding frequencies by role. We developed narrative summaries of stress and support categories and selected quotes for contextual detail.

RESULTS

Cancer-related stressors were most prevalent (28.8%), followed by work (26.8%), family (23.1%), social isolation (13.4%), and finances (8.0%). While no significant difference in reporting frequency was observed between roles, cancer-related stress was more prevalent for survivors while work-related stress was mentioned more by care partners. Emotional support was the most prevalent support type (32.1%), followed by companionship (25.3%), appraisal (17.9%), instrumental (16.67%), and informational support (8%). Survivors reported more appraisal support than care partners (χ2 = 6.48, df = 1, P = .011) and more support for self-care, while care partners expressed more other-oriented concerns and focused more on managing responsibilities and interactions outside the household.

CONCLUSIONS

The pandemic complicated and intensified role-based stressors already present in the survivorship context. Our findings highlight the importance of informal social support networks, particularly when access to formal services is limited, and suggest that audio diaries can be an effective tool for assessing support needs and resources.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses and healthcare providers should tailor social support assessments to address the distinct support needs and individual resources of cancer survivors and their care partners. This is especially critical in contexts that limit access to care and formal services.