CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 346Health disparities and outcomesFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsAging, Health, and Disability

Health in household context: Living arrangements and health in late middle age

Open access
Hughes, Mary Elizabeth, Waite, Linda J.·2002·Journal of Health and Social Behavior
DOI 10.2307/3090242PMC PMC1440422
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

People living in some arrangements show better health than persons in other living arrangements. Recent prospective studies document higher mortality among persons living in particular types of households. We extend this research by examining the influence of household structure on health using longitudinal data. We theorize that individuals experience role-based household relations as sets of resources and demands. In certain household structures, individuals are more likely to perceive that the demands made on them outweigh the resources available to them. This perceived imbalance poses a risk to individual health. We test our expectations by analyzing the relationship between living arrangements and health using data from waves 1 and 2 of the Health and Retirement Study. We focus on persons ages 51-61 and explore gender differences. We find prospective links between household structure and self-rated health, mobility limitation, and depressive symptoms. Married couples living alone or with children only are the most advantaged; single women living with children appear disadvantaged on all health outcomes. Men and women in other household types are disadvantaged on some health outcomes. Our results suggest that the social context formed by the household may be important to the social etiology of health. In addition, they qualify the well-known link between marital status and health: The effect of marital status on health depends on household context.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/3090242

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • People who live alone in later life may be more vulnerable in terms of social, behavioural, functional, and socioeconomic factors.

    “People who live alone in later life may be more vulnerable in terms of social, behavioural, functional, and socioeconomic factors (Bergland & Engedal, 2011;Haslbeck, McCorkle, & Schaeffer, 2012;Hughes & Waite, 2002;Shaw, Fors, Fritzell, Lennartsoon, & Agahi, 2017).”

    From Living alone and cognitive function in later life (2019) · cites this paper as Hughes & Waite, 2002

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Antonucci, Toni C. and Hiroko Akiyama. 1995. “Convoys of Social Relations: Family and Friendships within a Life Span Context.” Pp. 355–71 in Handbook of Aging and the Family, edited by R. Blieszner and V H. Bedford. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
  2. Bengtson, Vern, Carolyn Rosenthal, and Linda Burton. 1990. “Families and Aging: Diversity and Heterogeneity.” Pp. 263–87 in Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences, 3d ed., edited by R. H. Binstock and L. K. George. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  3. Berkman, Lisa F. and Thomas Glass. 2000. “Social Integration, Social Networks, Social Support, and Health.” Pp. 137–73 in Social Epidemiology, edited by L. F. Berkman and I. Kawachi. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  4. Burr Jeffrey A, Mutchler Jan E. “Ethnic Living Arrangements: Cultural Convergence or Cultural Manifestation”. Social Forces. 1993;72:169–80. [Google Scholar]
  5. House James S, Umberson Debra, Landis Karl R. “Structures and Processes of Social Support”. Annual Review of Sociology. 1988;14:293–318. [Google Scholar]
  6. Hughes, Mary Elizabeth and Linda J. Waite. Forthcoming. “The American Family as a Context for Healthy Aging.” In The Family in an Aging Society, edited by Sarah Harper. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  7. Kessler Ronald C, McLeod Jane D. “Sex Differences in Vulnerability to Network Events”. American Sociological Review. 1984;49:620–31. [Google Scholar]
  8. Logan, John R. and Glenna D. Spitze. 1996. Family Ties: Enduring Relations between Parents and Their Grown Children. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
  9. Lupton, Joseph and James P. Smith. Forthcoming. “Marriage, Assets, and Savings.” In Marriage and the Economy, edited by S. Grossbard-Shechtman. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Marks Nadine F, Lambert James David. “Marital Status Continuity and Change among Young and Mid-Life Adults: Longitudinal Effects on Psychological Well-being”. Journal of Family Issues. 1998;19:652–86. [Google Scholar]
  11. Moen Phyllis, Dempster-McClain Donna, Williams Robin M. “Successful Aging: A Life Course Perspective on Women’s Multiple Roles and Health”. American Journal of Sociology. 1992;97:1612–38. [Google Scholar]
  12. Rogers, Richard G., Robert A. Hummer, and Charles B. Nam. 2000. Living and Dying in the USA: Behavioral, Health and Social Differentials of Adult Mortality. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  13. Ross Catherine E, Mirowsky John, Goldsteen Karen. “The Impact of the Family on Health: Decade in Review”. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1990;52:1059–78. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ross Catherine E, Wu C. “The Links between Education and Heath”. American Sociological Review. 1995;60:719–45. [Google Scholar]
  15. Umberson Debra, Chen Meichu D, House James S, Hopkins Kristine, Slaten Ellen. “Gender Differences in Relationships and Psychological Weil-Being”. American Sociological Review. 1996;61:837–57. [Google Scholar]
  16. Wallace Robert A, Herzog A Regula. “Overview of the Health Measures in the Health and Retirement Survey”. Journal of Human Resources. 1995;30:S84–S107. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hughes, M. E., & Waite, L. J.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
ORCID
Waite, Linda J.
Venue
Journal of Health and Social Behavior
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2002-03
Volume
43
Issue
1
Pages
1
ISSN
0022-1465 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/3090242
PMC
PMC1440422
OpenAlex
W1989126018
Cited by
346
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 18
FWCI
4.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Health and Social Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1r03ag014816-01)
  • National Institute on Aging (P20AG012857, R03 AG14816, P30AG012857, P01AG018911, T32AG000243)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Aging, Health, and Disability
Keywords
living arrangements, household composition, late middle age, self-rated health, mobility limitations, depressive symptoms, marital status, gender differences, married couples
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Depressive Disorder, Family Characteristics, Family Health, Female, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, United States, Marital Status, Self Efficacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review