The differential importance of personal and environmental resources to older Canadians.

Low, Gail ; Keating, Norah ; Gao, Zhiwei 等

AGING IS A COMPLEX PROCESS OF adaptation to physical, psychological, and social changes (Steverink, Lindenberg, and Ormel 1998). With the higher probability of changing life circumstances in older age, stressors and the need to adapt increase rather than decrease (Borglin et al. 2006). How well people adapt to the stresses of living depends heavily upon the personal and environmental resources available to them, and is reflected, in part, in how people feel about themselves and their life conditions (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). Social production function theory asserts that resources both internal and external to the individual function as instruments or means to achieving well-being (Steverink et al. 2005). While individuals are assumed to be resourceful and strive to maximize their well-being, restrictions in resources available in older age constrain optimal well-being (Steverink et al. 1998). Declining reserve capacities in older age are of concern as they lead to greater vulnerability or frailty, and risk for decline in well-being (Steverink et al. 2005).

The changing balance between gains and losses in resources in later life can lead to a reliance on idiosyncratic ways of achieving well-being (Steverink et al. 1998) with older people taking courses of action likely to enhance their well-being by putting resources to use in ways they believe best meet their perceived needs (Steverink et al. 2005). Cummins' (1996) observations that people who were satisfied with their lives as a whole also experience dissatisfaction in particular areas of their lives, suggest resources impact peoples' lives in different ways. This begs the question of whether some resources in older age overlap or differ in their purposes to optimize life satisfaction. To further explore this question within a Canadian context, a secondary analysis of General Social Survey data on Social Engagement Cycle 17 (Statistics Canada 2004) was undertaken to examine whether personal and environmental resources are differentially important in predicting satisfaction across four domains of older Canadians' lives (health, time use, finances, and main activity).

Personal resources can be physical in nature and include health and energy (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). Many Canadians live out their retirement years with chronic illnesses, such as cancer, diabetes, lung disease, and arthritis, and experience disability and dependence with advancing age (Martel et al. 2005). There is evidence suggesting that health-related resources or the lack thereof could significantly affect the satisfaction of health in older age (Michalos and Zumbo 2002). Similarly, for the satisfaction with both time use and activities in general, physical health impacts upon older peoples' propensity for volunteer (Kloseck, Crilly, and Mannell 2006) and hobby work, (Bukov, Maas, and Lampert 2002) pursuing education, worshipping, and the frequency of outings (Litwin and Shiovitz-Ezra 2006; Menec 2003). Seniors in poorer health might also be less satisfied with their financial circumstances given the link between income adequacy and self-rated health (Cairney 2000; Martel et al. 2005).

Personal resources also function as cognitions or active-motivational processes furthering the older person's ability to self-manage their resources, cope with loss and remain actively engaged (Steverink et al. 2005). The sense of control, coherence, and self-efficacy have been found to differentiate older people with high and low levels of physical functioning (Bishop, Martin, and Poon 2006; Martel et al. 2005), and perceived control to partly mediate the effects of ill health on life satisfaction as a whole (Bourque et al. 2005). Psychological beliefs may then, function as internal resources that help people manage health-related stressors (Pearlin 1989). Others argue disillusionment with health-related impairments deter social participation in terms of time use and levels of activity in general (Low, Molzahn, and Kalfoss 2008). Seniors with stronger positive cognitions may be those most satisfied with their health, time use, and main activities. The structural attributes of the physical environment or housing and neighborhood needs and options for community participation, and informal attributes, such as support provision, become increasingly important resources affecting well-being, particularly when people experience declines in function (Cvitkovich and Wister 2001). Older people in poorer health are more likely to have negative views of neighborhood crime and safety, living enjoyment and deprivation, and friendliness (Wiggins et al. 2004). Access to information about community events, activities of interest, and leisure facilities also influences social participation (Low et al. 2008). Living in deprived environments in older age is also associated with health and economic disparities (Cairney 2000). Notably, safe, accessible, and familiar living environments could increase the likelihood of being satisfied with one's health and finances; those lacking might constrain time use and main activities.

Social participation in one's community appears to play an important role in generating environmental or external resources. Civic engagement is akin to capacity building through the sharing of information, skills and resources, and mobilizing people within a community in volunteer and leadership roles (Victorino and Gauthier 2002). Social capital is generated through relationships, such as associations with social action or hobby groups, and volunteer work having the potential to facilitate information flow, support individual's social credentials and reinforce identity or recognition (Reimer et al. 2008). Volunteer work, as an altruistic behavior, fosters the sense of community connectedness and belonging (Theurer and Wister in press) and is more often done out of obligation and social value than self-interest per se (Chappell and Prince 1997). Volunteer work also enhances physical health and independence (Menec 2003; Morrow-Howell et al. 2003). Older people also define community involvement as a productive and generative activity (Warburton and McLaughlin 2005). Seemingly, civic engagement is important to health, time use, and activity in general. Civic activities also involve exchanges of material resources, such as charitable donations and casting political votes (Burr, Caro, and Moorhead 2002). Further evidence implicating stable income and political freedom with life satisfaction as a whole (Haller and Hadler 2006) suggests social capital relations might function as a kind of stock that can be drawn upon for economic ends (Reimer et al. 2008).

Communal relations, marked by intense socialization and shared identities, generate social capital through reciprocal support (Reimer et al. 2008), thus potentially impacting time use, health, and activity. Close ties within one's social network have been described as sources of meaningful and purposive activity (Low and Molzahn 2007). Quality support (Bishop et al. 2006), not frequency of contact (Martel et al. 2005) within social networks, and having familiar and trusting neighbors (Bowling et al. 2006) has enhanced seniors' health perceptions. Satisfaction with contact from family, friends, and neighbors has also predicted one aspect of subjective well-being--the satisfaction with the personal use of time (Litwin and ShiovitzEzra 2006). Informal care from family, neighbors, and friends has been found to increase with health-related needs and not be displaced by in-home service care (Penning 2002), nor has informal care from adult children deterred because of paid employment (Rosenthal et al. 2004; Rosenthal, Martin-Matthews, and Keefe 2007) or minimal monetary compensation (Keefe and Fancey 1997). Although siblings and spouses most often assist in the provision of direct care, they, as do friends, also offer moral, household, and financial support (Sims-Gould and Martin-Matthews 2007).

METHODS

Data Collection

Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Alberta Health Research Ethics Board, Panel B before embarking on our secondary analysis of the GSS Cycle 17 public use microdata file (PUMF). Cycle 17 data captures social trends in the living conditions and well-being of Canadians over time, with social participation as key core content (Statistics Canada 2004), and was collected between February and December 2003 from all noninstitutionalized persons over the age of 15 in all provinces except the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Each of the 10 provinces were geographically stratified and then, separately and randomly sampled for computer-assisted telephone interviews. Data pertaining to all adults aged 60 and over from the GSS Cycle 17, which ended in a total of 5,986, were used in this study.

Study Sample

Sample characteristics were weighted to reflect all seniors in the population (Statistics Canada 2004). Slightly more than half of respondents were female (54.9 percent). For their highest level of education, 40.4 percent reported having less than secondary education, 13.1 percent were secondary graduates, and 43.5 percent had a postsecondary or higher level of education. Categories of age were: 60 to 69 (48.4 percent), 70 to 79 (34.6 percent), and 80+ years of age (16.9 percent). With respect to marital status, 64.2 percent were with a partner. Available data on personal income was the proportion reporting an annual income of less than $15,000 (20.3 percent), $15,000 to 29,999 (18.1 percent), $30,000 and above (23.9 percent); slightly more than a third (35.8 percent) did not report an annual income.

Survey Items

The four domains of life (time use, health, finances, and main activity) were coded on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 10 with only two categories labeled as 1 = very dissatisfied and 10 = very satisfied. Respondents with "no opinion," "not stated," or "don't know" were excluded from further analysis as these could, in theory, fall anywhere along the 10-point Likert scale. Subsequently, each domain was receded into two categories: those dissatisfied (range = 1-5) and those satisfied (range = 6-10). Data pertaining to personal and environmental resources were housed in modules on health and activity limitations, mastery, dwelling and safety, and social, civic, and religious participation, from which the latter three groups of respondents were also excluded.

Perceptions of health limitations were measured using items from the health and activity limitations module, one of which pertained to general health on a five-point Likert scale recoded into two categories: fair/poor versus good/very good/excellent. Remaining items elicited yes/no responses, asking about difficulty hearing, seeing, communicating, walking, climbing stairs, bending, learning, or doing any other similar activity, and on a more contextual level, physical or mental conditions or health problems reducing the amount or kind of activity in their home; activities outside the home pertaining to work or school; transport, leisure, and other activities. Respondents were also asked whether they had trouble going to or staying asleep. For positive beliefs, we used a measure of the sense of mastery (Pearlin and Schooler 1978) or the "MASCALE" reflecting the extent to which individuals believed that their life chances were under their control. Scores on this interval level scale spanned from 0 through 30, with higher scores indicating superior mastery.

The physical environment was measured by items from the dwelling and safety modules. Dwelling pertained to number of neighbors known by the respondent (nobody/few versus many/most), whether neighbors were helpful, and duration of residence (less than one year versus one to four years and five or more years). Items on beliefs about neighborhood safety reflected proportions feeling very/reasonably safe versus somewhat/very unsafe/not walking alone after dark, and those, when at home feeling not at all worried versus worried/never alone at night.

Quality of social support was measured using items from the social participation module. Supportive care received reflected the proportion of respondents having none, one or two, and three or more relatives and, also friends whom they felt close to, felt at ease with talking about what is on their mind, or could call on for help. Data were available on reciprocal social support, with informal help given measured by the proportion giving help to anyone with domestic work, home maintenance, outdoor work; transport or running errands; teaching, coaching, or giving practical advice; emotional support; and child care. Informal help received did not include child care.

Religious support was measured using two items reflecting the proportion of those perceiving their religious and spiritual beliefs as not at all/not very important versus somewhat/very important, and also those who were not attending versus those attending (annually, monthly, and weekly inclusively) religious services and meetings. Items on civic activities were taken from the civic participation module. These included proportions being a member of: a union or professional organization; a political party or group; a sports or recreation league or club; cultural, educational, or hobby (theater, book, or bridge) group; a religious affiliated group; a school group, neighborhood watch, civic or community organization; a service or fraternal club. "Political engagement" reflected proportions voting in the last federal, provincial, and municipal election; searching for information on a political issue; volunteering in a political party; expressing views in a newspaper or to a politician; signing a petition; boycotting a product for ethical reasons; attending and speaking out at a public meeting; participating in a demonstration or march. "Volunteering and charitable giving" pertained to the number of hours spent volunteering in the past month, and the proportion of those donating money or goods to an organization, the type not being specified.

Data Analysis

In determining differential importance, we empirically tested the effects of perceived health limitations, the physical environment, quality social and religious support, and civic participation upon all four life domains using logistic regression (deMaris 1995). Doing so allowed us to identify those resources most likely to significantly enhance the odds of being satisfied and the domains wherein such effects took place. All item-to-item correlations observed between study variables in the initial model were .35 or less (Hinkle 1988; Shortell 2009), leading us to exclude spiritual beliefs and health-related limitations in transport, leisure and other activities, and sensory, mobility and learning ability. A purposeful-selection method, namely backward stepping, was then used to determine variables important in the final model (Hosmer and Lemeshow 1999). Our use of SUDAAN software within a logistic regression framework permitted a balanced repeated replication akin to repetitive sampling for generating quality or unbiased estimates of variance (Phillips 2004). Estimates and their 95 percent confidence intervals were generated using the 200 bootstrap weights provided for users of the General Social Survey by Statistics Canada (2004). To generalize our findings beyond the studied sample, we controlled for gender, age, marital status, income, and education.

RESULTS

The frequency distributions shown in Table 1 provide evidence of positive associations between resources of interest in this study across all four domains of life. There was a higher propensity for being satisfied among Canadian seniors engaging in civic activities, having quality social relationships within the informal sector, and residing in safe, familiar, and neighborly environments reported across all four domains of life. Health-related limitations yielded far greater discrepancies. We also found lower overall proportions of satisfied Canadian seniors within the financial domain.

Our univariate analysis shown in Table 2 indicates the odds of being satisfied with health, time, finances, and main activities is significantly associated with higher resource holdings for the vast majority of our independent variables. Exceptions were receiving informal help with teaching, coaching, or giving practical advice across all four domains, duration of residence in the health domain, seeking political information in the time use domain, and being in a demonstration or march in relation to finances and main activities. Religious attendance was not associated with the satisfaction with time use or finances.

At the multivariate level, each life domain model was statistically significant (p < .001), as were resource variables shown in Table 3 for which corresponding odds ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals are reported. Explained variance in satisfaction ranged from .12 for time use to .21 for health. Canadian seniors in poor or fair health were significantly more likely to be satisfied with their time use, as were those not having trouble sleeping or a physical or mental condition limiting opportunities for further work or education. Those not donating money or goods to organizations were 30 percent and not affiliated with cultural, educational, or hobby groups were nearly 40 percent less likely to be satisfied with their time use. Respondents having no relatives or one to two whom they felt close to, at ease with talking to, and could call on for help, reduced the odds of being satisfied by 46 percent and 25 percent, respectively. One aspect of the physical environment, namely, knowing no or few people in one's neighborhood had a detrimental effect. For every one unit increase in the sense of mastery, the odds of being satisfied with time use increased by 10 percent.

In the health domain model, those in poor to fair health were significantly less likely to be satisfied than were those in good to excellent health. Canadian seniors not having a physical or mental condition limiting opportunities for further work or education, and trouble sleeping, respectively, were 1.83 and 2.49 times more likely to be satisfied with their health. Those having three or more close, supportive relatives were significantly more satisfied with their health than those having none. For every one unit increase in the sense of mastery, the odds of being satisfied with health increased by 7 percent.

With respect to finances, Canadian seniors in poor or fair health were 1.8 times more likely to be satisfied with their finances than those in good or excellent health. Those having no trouble sleeping or limitations in further work or education were 1.3 times more likely to be satisfied. Those not engaging in charitable work through giving monetary donations or goods or not being a member of a cultural, educational, or hobby group had far lesser odds of being satisfied with their finances, these being .59 and .67, respectively. Not voting in the last federal election and living in a place where neighbors did not help one another was of further detriment. Again, the sense of mastery was statistically significant.

In the main activity model, respondents in poor or fair health in older age had a significantly lesser odds of being satisfied than did those in good to excellent health. Further, not having trouble sleeping or a condition limiting activities at home increased the likelihood of being satisfied by 1.71 and 2.41 times, respectively. Those not engaging in charitable work were more likely to be dissatisfied, as were those not taking part in a sports or recreation league or group. Compared with those having three or more close supportive relatives, seniors having none were 41 percent less likely to be satisfied with their main activity; a similar pattern was observed among those reporting having one to two friends. Those not attending religious services were 27 percent less likely to be satisfied with their main activity. As was the case in all other models, a higher sense of mastery was beneficial.

DISCUSSION

Our results offer preliminary evidence of the differential importance of personal and environmental resources to older Canadians across four life domains. We found unique variations in patterns of significance across all four domains of life, a number of these being counterintuitive findings warranting further discussion.

Our finding draws attention to the idiosyncratic ways of maximizing well-being in older age and more specifically, that social resources might compensate for physical losses (Steverink et al. 1998; Steverink et al. 2005). Contrary to what we had expected, those in poor or fair health having the higher likelihood of being satisfied with time use. Surprisingly, however, numbers of close friends for confiding in and calling upon for help, not kin, were of significant benefit, and the higher the number, the greater the benefit derived. Though nearly two-thirds (64.5 percent) of Canadian seniors had resided in their current neighborhood for 10 or more years, knowing many or most neighbors (48.4 percent) was instead, of similar benefit. These findings illustrate the importance of discretionary ties to neighbors and friends (Cornwell, Laumann, and Schumm 2008) as communal relations often operating through the exchange of favors or the reinforcement of shared identity (Reimer et al. 2008). Late-life friendships, akin to sibling ties, are characterized by a similar status in terms of age and social class, long-term reciprocity, and a shared history fostering self-continuity (McRae 1996). Canadian seniors also turned to their community ties through taking part in charitable work (77.2 percent) and cultural, educational, or hobby groups (17.6 percent) as satisfying ways of spending time. Older people may reap benefit from these associative relationships through pursuing shared interests and common goals (Reimer et al. 2008), and belonging and connectedness (Theurer and Wister in press).

Ill health was also not of detriment to finances. In more closely investigating this finding, we noted that despite approximately 39 percent of respondents reporting a personal income of $30,000 or less, only 24.8 percent actually reported not being satisfied with their finances. While it appears that subjective income perceptions do not always mirror objective economic status in older age (Ballantyne and Marshall 2001), other compensatory resources may be at work. Neighbors helping neighbors is one mechanism expanding the potential pool of support services within a local setting and building community capacity (Victorino and Gauthier 2002). Nearly one-third (32.7 percent) of participants receiving regular unpaid help reported people in the neighborhood as the source. Seemingly, neighbor relations are akin to market relations operating through the open and free exchanges of goods or services (Reimer et al. 2008). While our finding, that close kin did not enhance the satisfaction with finances, supports the findings of others (Rosenthal, Martin-Matthews, and Keefe 2007; Rosenthal, Martin-Matthews, and Matthews 1996), it might be that neighbors provide a financial buffer for seniors and indirectly, their families by offering assistance in-kind. Our finding that federal voting also enhanced the satisfaction with finances speaks to Grundy's (2006) contention that main sources of income in older age are often dependent upon the decisions made by external parties, such as governments and pension-fund managers. Nearly half (44.7 percent) of Canadian seniors reported pension plans as their main source of income, albeit public or private, 19.1 percent relied on old age security and income supplements. While pension income is seen as both a benefit and a security (Bassett, Bourbonnais, and McDowell 2007), age has been found to inversely predict being satisfied with expected future income and investments (Ballantyne and Marshall 2001). The greater odds of being dissatisfied among those nearing the cusp of retirement, and the importance of sleep quality and federal voting behavior (86.2 percent) may reflect worry over and compensatory efforts for securing an economic future.

Older Canadians experiencing ill health could also be resilient. Resilience, a psychosocial resource possible for all older people, has to do with the adaptive use of resources to negotiate age-salient developmental challenges (Harris 2008). Resilience enhances older adults' ability to sustain social connections and interests, and to manage one way or another (Windle, Markland, and Woods 2008). We found older Canadians took great pains to extend their social networks to friends, neighbors, and community to manage their time and financial circumstances. Mastery, as a self-management resource, being important to time use and unexpectedly to finances is another case in point.

The patterns of differing importance in this study align with social production function theory as resources are used by older people in idiosyncratic ways to best meet their needs (Steverink et al. 1998; Steverink et al. 2005). We are also reminded of the functional specificity of relationships in that certain groups may be better suited for some tasks, necessitating a diverse set of supportive relationships (Connidis and McMullin 1992). Religious affiliates for example, were important to main activities. In the health domain, contrary to others' findings (Penning 2002; Sims-Gould and Martin-Matthews 2007), neither friends nor neighbors appeared to be important; rather, it was family alone. The nonsignificant difference in having one or two versus three or more relatives suggests that close kin, no matter the number, count when it comes to health. Hence, while resources might serve different purposes based on personal preference as Connidis and McMullin (1992) point out, there may be a need for different hierarchies of supportive ties in older age.

Though their focus is on time allocations to leisure in older age, Gauthier and Smeeding (2003) draw attention to utility maximization processes, these being dependent on resource constraints in health, family, and opportunities for activity. Social productivity pertains to internal resourcefulness despite ill health, marked by resiliency and compensatory action. The informal sector, albeit family, friend, neighbor, or community group ties, enhance the satisfactions with life. Our noting their differing and widespread importance across four life domains indicates personal and environmental resources available to older Canadians are stretched to optimize life satisfaction. As people age, declines in resources are likely; these reinforce one another and enhance vulnerability or frailty (Steverink et al. 2005). Further declines in personal resources and relational capital (Reimer et al. 2008) would be detrimental to older Canadians on multiple levels, reducing their compensatory capacities over their remaining life years. Although we found that old-olds were more likely to be satisfied with their time use and finances than their younger counterparts, these findings are cross-sectional. Resource-related initiatives to reduce vulnerability are needed (WHO 2002) yet little clarity exists around resource needs and the mechanisms by which resources optimize well-being over the life span (Steverink et al. 2005). Helping older people without close kin or friends connect with social outlets of interest might strengthen their sense of mastery (Hilleras et al. 2000), a personal resource important to all life domains in this study. That job interruptions or loss in older age pose economic and health detriments (He, Colantonio, and Marshall 2001) suggests seniors with health constraints limiting work and education might benefit from tailored, accessible sport or recreation programs (Acree et al. 2006).

Our methods pose several limitations. Items identifying all sources of household income to further explore the absence of a link between close kin and finances were suppressed. In light of our findings on ill health and time use, using cross-sectional data did not permit exploring how activity patterns change in response to declines in health. The use of non-PUMF data would permit rural versus urban and cross-provincial comparisons. Qualitative research would enhance our understanding of the resources older people value, and whether and how these change over time.

In closing, resources are likely to be differentially important in older age. Our findings highlight idiosyncratic patterns of resource use across four aspects of older Canadians lives, reflecting perhaps personal preferences, functional specificities, or maximum utility. With the exception of ill health augmenting satisfactions with time use and finances, having few personal and environmental resources likely enhances vulnerability to frailty. Resource-related initiatives are imperative given the ever-increasing life expectancy in Canada (Statistics Canada 2006). We identify a few interventions potentially benefiting multiple life satisfactions; however, further research is needed. Longitudinally examining the purpose and utility of resources valued by older Canadians across multiple life domains would augment our understanding of how personal and environmental resources better their lives.

References

Acree, L.S., J. Longfors, A.S. Fjeldstad, C. Fjeldstad, B. Schank, K.J. Nickel, P.S. Montgomery and A.W. Gardner. 2006. "Physical Activity Is Related to Quality of Life in Older Adults." Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 4:1-6, article No. 37.

Ballantyne, P. and V.W. Marshall. 2001. "Subjective Income Security of (Middle) Aging and Elderly Canadians." Canadian Journal on Aging 20:151-73.

Bassett, R., V. Bourbonnais and I. McDowell. 2007. "Living Long and Keeping Well: Elderly Canadians Account of Successful Aging." Canadian Journal on Aging 26:113-26.

Bishop, A.J., P. Martin and L. Poon. 2006. "Happiness and Congruence in Older Adulthood: A Structural Model of Life Satisfaction." Aging and Mental Health 10:445-53.

Borglin, G., U. Jakobsson, A.K. Edberg and I.R. Hallberg. 2006. "Older People in Sweden with Various Degrees of Present Quality of Life: Their Health, Social Support, Activities, and Sense of Coherence." Health and Social Care in the Community 14:136-46.

Bourque, P., D. Pushkar, L. Bonneville and F. Beland. 2005. "Contextual Effects on Life Satisfaction of Older Men and Women." Canadian Journal on Aging 24:31-44.

Bowling, A., J. Barber, R. Morris and S. Ebrahim. 2006. "Do Perceptions of Neighbourhood Environment Influence Health? Baseline Findings from a British Survey on Aging." Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 60:476-83.

Bukov, A., I. Maas and T. Lampert. 2002. "Social Participation in Very Old Age: Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Findings from BASE." Journals of Gerontology Series B--Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 56:510-17.

Burr, J.A., F.G. Caro and J. Moorhead. 2002. "Productive Aging and Civic Participation." Journal of Aging Studies 16:87-105.

Cairney, J. 2000. "Socio-Economic Status and Self-Rated Health among Older Canadians." Canadian Journal on Aging 19:456-78.

Chappell, N. and M.J. Prince. 1997. "Reasons Why Canadian Seniors Volunteer." Canadian Journal on Aging 16:336-53.

Connidis, I.A. and J.A. McMullin. 1992. "Getting Out of the House: The Effect of Childlessness on Social Participation and Companionship in Later Life." Canadian Journal on Aging 11:370-86.

Cornwell, B., E.O. Laumann and L.P. Schumm. 2008. "The Social Connectedness of Older Adults: A National Profile." American Sociological Review 73:185-203.

Cummins, R. 1996. "The Domains of Life Satisfaction: An Attempt to Order Chaos." Social Indicators Research 38:303-28.

Cvitkovich, Y. and A. Wister. 2001. "The Importance of Transportation and Prioritization of Environmental Needs to Sustain Well-Being among Older Adults." Environment and Behavior 33:809-29.

DeMaris, A. 1995. "A Tutorial in Logistic Regression." Journal of Marriage and the Family 57:956-68.

Gauthier, A.H. and T.M. Smeeding. 2003. "Time Use at Older Ages." Research on Aging 25:247-74.

Grundy, E. 2006. "Ageing and Vulnerable Elderly People: European Perspectives." Ageing and Society 26:105-34.

Hailer, M. and M. Hadler. 2006. "How Social Relations and Structures Produce Happiness and Unhappiness: An International Comparative Analysis." Social Indicators Research 75:169-216.

Harris, P.B. 2008. "Another Wrinkle in the Debate about Successful Aging: The Undervalued Concept of Resilience and the Lived Experience of Dementia." International Journal of Aging and Human Development 67:43-61.

He, Y.H., A. Colantonio and V.W. Marshall. 2001. "Later-Life Career Disruption and Self-Rated Health: An Analysis of the General Social Survey." Canadian Journal on Aging 22:45-57.

Hilleras, P.K., P. Pollitt, J. Medway and K. Ericsson. 2000. "Nonagenarians: A Qualitative Exploration of Individual Differences in Well-Being." Ageing and Society 20:673-97.

Hinkle, D.E. 1988. "Correlation: A Measure of Relationship." Pp. 103-25 in Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, edited by D.E. Hinkle, W. Wiersma and S.G. Jurs. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hosmer, D.W. and S. Lemeshow. 1999. Applied Survival Analysis. New York: Wiley.

Keefe, J. and P. Fancey. 1997. "Financial Compensation or Home Help Services: Examining Differences among Program Recipients." Canadian Journal on Aging 16:254-78.

Kloseck, M., R.G. Crilly and R.C. Mannell. 2006. "Involving the Community Elderly in the Planning and Provision of Health Services: Volunteerism and Leadership." Canadian Journal on Aging 25:77-91.

Lazarus, R.S. and S. Folkman. 1984. Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York: Springer.

Litwin, H. and S. Shiovitz-Ezra. 2006. "The Association between Activity and Well-Being in Later Life: What Really Matters?" Ageing and Society 26(Part 2):225-42.

Low, G. and A. Molzahn. 2007. "A Replication Study of Predictors of Quality of Life in Older Age." Research in Nursing and Health 30:141-50.

Low, G., A. Molzahn and M. Kalfoss. 2008. "Quality of Life of Older Adults in Canada and Norway: Examining the Iowa Model." Western Journal of Nursing Research 30:458-76.

Martel, L., M. Belanger, J.M. Berthelot and Y. Carriere. 2005. "Healthy Today, Healthy Tomorrow? Findings from the National Population Health Survey." Retrieved October 3, 2006 (http://www.statcan.ca/bsolc/english/bsolc?catno=82-618-M).

McRae, H. 1996. "Strong and Enduring Ties: Older Women and their Friends." Canadian Journal on Aging 15:374-92.

Menec, V.H. 2003. "The Relation between Everyday Activities and Successful Aging: A 6 Year Longitudinal Study." Journals of Gerontology Series B--Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 58:S74-82.

Michalos, A.C. and B.D. Zumbo. 2002. "Healthy Days, Health Satisfaction and Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Life." Social Indicators Research 59:321-38.

Morrow-Howell, N., J. Hinterlong, P.A. Rozario and F. Tang. 2003. "Effects of Volunteering on the Well-Being of Older Adults." Journals of Gerontology Series B--Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 58:S137-45.

Pearlin, L.I. 1989. "The Sociological Study of Stress." Journal of Health and Social Behaviour 30:241-56.

Pearlin, L.I. and C. Schooler. 1978. "The Structure of Coping." Journal of Health and Social Behaviour 19:2-21.

Penning, M. 2002. "Hydra Revisited: Substituting Formal for Self- and Informal In-Home Care among Older Adults with Disabilities." The Gerontologist 42:4-16.

Phillips, O. 2004. "Using Bootstrap Weights with Wes Var and SUDAAN." Statistics Canada, The Research Data Centres Information and Technical Bulletin 1:6-15.

Reimer, B., T. Lyons, N. Ferguson and G. Polanco. 2008. "Social Capital as Social Relations: The Contribution of Normative Structures." The Sociological Review 56:256-74.

Rosenthal, C.J., L. Hayward, A. Martin-Matthews and M. Denton. 2004. "Help to Older Parents and Parents-in-Law: Does Paid Employment Constrain Women's Helping Behaviour?" Canadian Journal on Aging 23(Suppl):S97-112.

Rosenthal, C.J., A. Martin-Matthews and J.M. Keefe. 2007. "Care Management and Care Provision for Older Relatives amongst Employed Informal Caregivers." Ageing and Society 27:755-78.

Rosenthal, C.J., A. Martin-Matthews and S. Matthews. 1996. "Caught in the Middle? Occupancy in Multiple Roles and Help to Parents in a National Probability Sample of Canadian Adults." Journals of Gerontology Series B--Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 56B:S274-83.

Shortell, T. 2009. "An Introduction to Data Analysis & Presentation." Retrieved August 31, 2009 (http://www.shortell.arg/book/chap18.html).

Sims-Gould, J. and A. Martin-Matthews. 2007. "Family Caregiving or Caregiving Alone: Who Helps the Helper." Canadian Journal on Aging 26(Suppl 1):27-46.

Statistics Canada. 2004. General Social Survey 2003. Cycle 17: Social Engagement.

Public Use Microdata File Documentation and User's Guide. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

Statistics Canada. 2006. A Portrait of Seniors in Canada 2006. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

Steverink, N., S. Lindenberg and J. Ormel. 1998. "Towards Understanding Successful Ageing: Patterned Changes in Resources and Goals." Ageing and Society 18:441-67.

Steverink, N., S. Lindenberg and J.P.J. Slaets. 2005. "How to Understand and Improve Older People's Self-Management of Well-Being." European Journal of Ageing 2: 23544.

Theurer, K. and A. Wister. In press. "Altruistic Behaviour and Social Capital as Predictors of Well-Being among Older Canadians." Ageing and Society. Online June 18, DOI: 10.1017/S0144686X09008848.

Victorino, C.C. and A.H. Gauthier. 2002. "Are Canadian Seniors Becoming More Active? Empirical Evidence Based on Time-Use Data." Canadian Journal on Aging 24:45-56.

Warburton, J. and D. McLaughlin. 2005. "Lots of Little Kindnesses: Valuing the Role of Older Australians as Informal Volunteers in the Community." Ageing and Society 25:715-30.

Wiggins, R.D., P.D.F. Higgs, M. Hyde and D. Blane. 2004. "Quality of Life in the Third Age: Key Predictors of the CASP-19 Measure." Ageing and Society 24:693-708.

Windle, G., D.A. Markland and R.T. Woods. 2008. "Examination of a Theoretical Model of the Psychological Resilience in Older Age." Aging and Mental Health 12:285-92.

World Health Organization. 2002. "Active Ageing--A Policy Framework." Retrieved August 28, 2009 (http://www.euro.who.int/ageing).

Gail Low, Faculty of Nursing, 3rd Floor, Clinical Sciences Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, T6G 2G3. E-mail: [email protected]

GAIL LOW, NORAH KEATING, AND ZHIWEI GAO

University of Alberta

Table 1
Distributions of the Satisfaction with Time Use, Health, Finances, and
Main Activity among Canadian Seniors

                                                            Time use
Variable name                             Categories         (yes %)

Perceived health                          Poor/fair           66.55
                                        Good/excellent        90.33
Trouble going to or staying                   No              87.96
asleep                                       Yes              76.64
Physical or mental condition                  No              87.22
limiting activity at home                    Yes              64.12
Number of relatives you feel                 None             74.32
close to, at ease to talk with,              1-2              81.38
can call on for help                      3 or more           87.42
Number of friends you feel                   None             73.25
close to, at ease to talk with,              1-2              82.36
can call on for help                      3 or more           85.07
Religious support (attendance)          Not attending         82.38
                                          Attending           86.56
Received help with transport or               No              85.94
running errands                              Yes              80.78
Received help with teaching,                  No              84.66
coaching, or giving practical                Yes              57.40
advice
Helped someone with domestic or               No              83.28
outdoor work, home maintenance               Yes              90.26
Helped someone with transport or              No              83.01
running errands                              Yes              89.18
Helped someone with child care                No              83.69
                                             Yes              89.69
Volunteer work                                No              81.77
                                             Yes              92.02
Donating money or goods to an                 No              75.71
organization                                 Yes              87.25
Member or participant of union or             No              84.29
professional organization                    Yes              89.94
Member or participant of sports               No              83.30
or recreation league or club                 Yes              91.98
Member or participant of cultural,            No              83.20
educational, or hobby group                  Yes              92.68
Member or participant of religious            No              83.56
affiliated group                             Yes              89.95
Member or participant of a school             No              84.21
group, neighborhood, civic or                Yes              90.91
community organization
Voted last federal election                   No              78.87
                                             Yes              55.81
Searched for information on a                 No              84.49
political issue                              Yes              87.08
Signed a petition                             No              84.00
                                             Yes              89.31
Spoke out at public meeting                   No              84.25
                                             Yes              92.21
In a demonstration or march                   No              84.82
                                             Yes              92.77
Volunteered for a political                   No              84.75
party                                        Yes              91.27
Whom in your neighborhood do              Nobody/few          82.22
you know                                  Many/most           87.77
Place where neighbors help                    No              78.69
each other                                   Yes              86.89
Duration of residence                     < 5 years           82.11
                                       5 years or more        85.70
Safe from crime walking home            Somewhat/very         81.40
alone after dark                      unsafe/never alone
                                     Reasonably/very safe     87.49
Worried when home alone at night     Worried/never alone      78.54
                                      Not at all worried      86.39
Education                            Less than secondary      79.68
                                      Secondary graduate      87.23
                                     Postsecondary/higher     89.12
Age                                         60-69             86.50
                                            70-79             85.52
                                             80+              78.58
Gender                                      Female            86.48
                                             Male             83.07
Marital status                           Not married          81.83
                                           Married            86.63
Income                                    < $15,000           80.64
                                       $15,000-$29,999        82.67
                                          > $30,000           90.16
                                           Unknown            84.87

                                                            Main
                                     Health    Finances   activity
Variable name                        (yes %)   (yes %)    (yes %)

Perceived health                      45.04     55.21      63.96
                                      90.08     79.09      90.80
Trouble going to or staying           84.55     76.56      88.46
asleep                                65.70     65.33      74.84
Physical or mental condition          83.20     75.19      87.60
limiting activity at home             51.08     58.10      62.18
Number of relatives you feel          69.28     62.42      74.43
close to, at ease to talk with,       76.24     70.06      81.62
can call on for help                  81.93     76.47      87.12
Number of friends you feel            71.86     63.08      75.17
close to, at ease to talk with,       77.76     70.48      81.41
can call on for help                  81.70     76.77      87.81
Religious support (attendance)        77.11     71.92      81.39
                                      81.04     74.52      86.94
Received help with transport or       81.31     74.55      86.13
running errands                       71.41     68.82      79.05
Received help with teaching,          79.2      73.31      84.61
coaching, or giving practical         81.42     74.79      86.51
advice
Helped someone with domestic or       77.34     72.64      83.02
outdoor work, home maintenance        86.42     76.61      90.60
Helped someone with transport or      77.06     72.61      82.65
running errands                       84.92     75.72      89.55
Helped someone with child care        78.36     72.75      83.47
                                      83.77     76.80      89.97
Volunteer work                        76.51     70.49      81.76
                                      86.51     80.49      91.63
Donating money or goods to an         71.65     58.65      75.02
organization                          81.49     77.33      87.24
Member or participant of union or     78.45     72.17      84.30
professional organization             87.14     83.02      88.57
Member or participant of sports       77.76     71.75      82.97
or recreation league or club          87.10     81.11      92.63
Member or participant of cultural,    78.29     70.93      83.13
educational, or hobby group           84.93     84.98      92.23
Member or participant of religious    77.70     71.16      83.08
affiliated group                      86.03     81.93      90.98
Member or participant of a school     78.66     72.75      84.03
group, neighborhood, civic or         86.32     79.82      91.19
community organization
Voted last federal election           70.17     62.11      76.75
                                      80.70     75.01      85.83
Searched for information on a         78.43     72.40      83.79
political issue                       84.33     78.32      89.20
Signed a petition                     78.11     72.23      83.55
                                      85.91     78.93      90.16
Spoke out at public meeting           78.75     72.96      84.28
                                      86.72     79.21      89.86
In a demonstration or march           79.20     73.39      84.76
                                      91.87     79.46      88.94
Volunteered for a political           79.20     72.98      84.52
party                                 87.71     85.42      91.70
Whom in your neighborhood do          76.89     70.66      82.32
you know                              82.29     76.73      87.49
Place where neighbors help            75.32     64.37      78.77
each other                            81.37     76.00      86.60
Duration of residence                 77.34     68.75      81.91
                                      80.10     74.71      85.56
Safe from crime walking home          72.91     68.59      80.71
alone after dark
                                      84.16     76.93      87.79
Worried when home alone at night      72.54     65.34      80.08
                                      81.09     75.38      85.99
Education                             73.26     65.25      79.55
                                      83.45     74.48      87.24
                                      84.40     80.49      88.94
Age                                   82.36     73.25      86.21
                                      77.66     72.60      84.87
                                      74.34     76.36      79.87
Gender                                78.81     73.96      85.64
                                      80.18     72.99      83.72
Marital status                        75.08     66.00      81.19
                                      81.80     77.60      86.69
Income                                72.51     59.63      79.38
                                      79.31     69.74      84.22
                                      88.59     87.62      91.57
                                      77.24     73.56      83.29

Table 2
Univariate Analysis of the Satisfaction with Time Use, Health,
Finances, and Main Activity among Canadian Seniors

                                                        Model 1
                                                        Time use
                                                       Odds ratio
Variable name                    Categories             (95% CI)

Perceived health                 Poor/fair                    1
                               Good/excellent       4.7 (4.0, 5.6) **
Trouble going to or                  No                       1
staying asleep                      Yes              .5 (.4, .5) **
Physical or mental                   No                       1
condition limiting                  Yes              .3 (.2, .3) **
activity at home
Number of relatives you             None             .4 (.3, .6) **
feel close to, at ease              1-2              .6 (.5, .8) **
to talk with, can call           3 or more                    1
on for help
Number of friends you               None             .4 (.3, .5) **
feel close to, at ease              1-2              .6 (.5, .8) **
to talk with, can call           3 or more                    1
on for help
Religious support              Not attending                  1
(attendance)                     Attending          1.0 (.8, 1.3)
Received help with                   No                       1
transport or running                Yes              .7 (.6, .8) **
errands
Received help with                   No                       1
teaching, coaching, or              Yes             1.3 (1.0, 1.7)
giving practical advice
Helped someone with                  No                       1
domestic or outdoor                 Yes             1.9 (1.5, 2.3) **
work, home maintenance
Helped someone with                  No                       1
transport or running                Yes             1.7 (1.4, 2.1) **
errands
Helped someone with                  No                       1
child care                          Yes             1.7 (1.3, 2.2) **
Volunteer work                       No
                                    Yes             2.6 (2.1, 3.2) **
Donating money or goods              No                       1
to an organization                  Yes             2.2 (1.8, 2.7) **
Member or participant                No                       1
of union or professional            Yes             1.7 (1.3, 2.2) **
organization
Member or participant of             No                       1
sports or recreation                Yes             2.3 (1.7, 3.1) **
league or club
Member or participant of             No                       1
cultural, educational,              Yes             2.6 (2.0, 3.3) **
or hobby group
Member or participant of             No                       1
religious-affiliated                Yes             1.8 (1.4, 2.2) **
group
Member or participant                No                       1
of a school group,                  Yes             1.9 (1.4, 2.6) **
neighborhood, civic or
community organization
Voted last federal                   No                       1
election                            Yes             1.6 (1.3, 2.1) **
Searched for information             No                       1
on a political issue                Yes             1.2 (.9, 1.6)
Signed a petition                    No                       1
                                    Yes             1.6 (1.2, 2.0) **
Spoke out at public                  No                       1
meeting                             Yes             2.2 (1.5, 3.2) **
Took part in a                       No                       1
demonstration or march              Yes             2.3 (1.3, 4.2) **
Volunteered for a                    No                       1
political party                     Yes             1.9 (1.1, 3.4) *
Whom in your neighborhood        Nobody/few                   1
do you know                      Many/moat          1.6 (1.3, 1.8) **
Place where neighbors                No                       1
help each other                     Yes             1.8 (1.5, 2.2) **
Duration of residence            < 5 years                    1
                              6 years or more       1.3 (1.1, 1.60) *
Safe from crime walking        Somewhat/very                  1
home alone after dark        unsafe/never alone
                            Reasonably/very safe    1.6 (1.3, 1.9) **
Worried when home alone     Worried/never alone               1
at night                     Not at all worried     1.7 (1.4, 2.2) **
Education                   Less than secondary      .5 (.4, .6) **
                             Secondary graduate      .8 (.6, 1.1)
                              Post secondary/                 1
                                   higher
Age                                60-69            1.8 (1.4, 2.2) **
                                   70-79            1.6 (1.3, 2.0) **
                                    80+                       1
Gender                             Female                     1
                                    Male             .8 (.6, .9) **
Marital status                  Not married                   1
                                  Married           1.4 (1.2, 1.7) **
Income                            <$15,000                    1
                              $15,000-$29,999       1.2 (.9, 1.5)
                                 > $30,000          2.2 (1.7, 2.9) **
                                  Unknown           1.4 (1.1, 1.7) **

                                  Model 2              Model 3
                                  Health               Finances
                                Odds ratio            Odds ratio
Variable name                    (95% CI)              (95% CI)

Perceived health                       1                     1
                            11.1 (9.5, 12.9) **    3.1 (2.7, 3.5) **
Trouble going to or                    1                     1
staying asleep                .4 (.3, .4) **        .6 (.5, .7) **
Physical or mental                     1                     1
condition limiting            .2 (.2, .3) **        .5 (.4, .6) **
activity at home
Number of relatives you       .6 (.5, .7) **        .5 (.4, .6) **
feel close to, at ease        .8 (.7, .9) **        .7 (.6, .9) **
to talk with, can call                 1                     1
on for help
Number of friends you         .6 (.5, .7) **        .5 (.4, .6) **
feel close to, at ease        .8 (.7, .9) **        .7 (.6, .9) **
to talk with, can call                 1                     1
on for help
Religious support                      1                     1
(attendance)                 1.3 (1.1, 1.5) **     1.1 (1.0, 1.3)
Received help with                     1                     1
transport or running          .6 (.5, .7) **        .8 (.7, .9) **
errands
Received help with                     1                     1
teaching, coaching, or       1.2 (.9, 1.4)         1.1 (.9, 1.3)
giving practical advice
Helped someone with                    1                     1
domestic or outdoor          1.9 (1.6, 2.3) **     1.2 (1.0, 1.5) *
work, home maintenance
Helped someone with                    1                     1
transport or running         1.7 (1.4, 2.0) **     1.2 (1.0, 1.4) *
errands
Helped someone with                    1                     1
child care                   1.4 (1.2, 1.7) **     1.2 (1.0, 1.5) *
Volunteer work
                             2.0 (1.6, 2.4) **     1.7 (1.5, 2.0) **
Donating money or goods                1                     1
to an organization           1.7 (1.5, 2.0) **     2.4 (2.0, 2.8) **
Member or participant                  1                     1
of union or professional     1.9 (1.4, 2.4) **     1.9 (1.5, 2.4) **
organization
Member or participant of               1                     1
sports or recreation         1.9 (1.5, 2.5) **    1.7 (1.4, 2.1) **
league or club
Member or participant of               1                     1
cultural, educational,       1.6 (1.3, 1.9) **    2.3 (1.9, 2.9) **
or hobby group
Member or participant of               1                     1
religious-affiliated         1.8 (1.5, 2.1) **    1.8 (1.5, 2.2) **
group
Member or participant                  1                     1
of a school group,           1.7 (1.3, 2.2) **    1.5 (1.2, 1.9) **
neighborhood, civic or
community organization
Voted last federal                     1                     1
election                     1.8 (1.4, 2.2) **    1.8 (1.5, 2.3) **
Searched for information               1                     1
on a political issue         1.5 (1.2, 1.8) **    1.4 (1.1, 1.7) **
Signed a petition                      1                     1
                             1.7 (1.4, 2.1) **    1.4 (1.2, 1.7) **
Spoke out at public                    1                     1
meeting                      1.8 (1.3, 2.4) **    1.4 (1.1, 1.8) **
Took part in a                         1                     1
demonstration or march       3.0 (1.7, 5.1) **    1.4 (.9, 2.2)
Volunteered for a                      1                     1
political party              1.9 (1.2, 3.0) *     2.2 (1.4, 3.4) **
Whom in your neighborhood              1                     1
do you know                  1.4 (1.2, 1.6) **    1.4 (1.2, 1.6) **
Place where neighbors                  1                     1
help each other              1.4 (1.2, 1.7) **    1.8 (1.5, 2.1) **
Duration of residence                  1                     1
                             1.2 (1.0, 1.4)       1.3 (1.1, 1.6) **
Safe from crime walking                1                     1
home alone after dark
                             2.0 (1.7, 2.3) **    1.5 (1.3, 1.8) **
Worried when home alone                1                     1
at night                     1.6 (1.3, 2.0) **    1.6 (1.4, 1.9) **
Education                     .5 (.4, .6) **       .5 (.4, .5) **
                              .9 (.7, 1.2)         .7 (.6, .9) **
                                       1                     1

Age                          1.6 (1.3, 2.0)**      .9 (.7, 1.1)
                             1.2 (.9, 1.5)         .8 (.7, 1.0)
                                       1                     1
Gender                                 1                     1
                             1.1 (.9, 1.3)        1.0 (.8, 1.1)
Marital status                         1                     1
                             1.5 (1.3, 1.7) **    1.8 (1.6, 2.0) **
Income                                 1                     1
                             1.5 (1.2, 1.8) **    1.6 (1.3, 1.9) **
                             2.9 (2.3, 3.7) **    4.8 (3.8, 6.1) **
                             1.3 (1.1, 1.5) **    1.9 (1.6, 2.2) **

                                 Model 4
                              Main Activity
                                Odds ratio
Variable name                    (95% CI)

Perceived health                       1
                             5.6 (4.7, 6.7) **
Trouble going to or                    1
staying asleep                .4 (.3, .5) **
Physical or mental                     1
condition limiting            .2 (.2, .4) **
activity at home
Number of relatives you       .4 (.3. .6) **
feel close to, at ease        .6 (.5, .7)
to talk with, can call                 1
on for help
Number of friends you         .4 (.3, .6) **
feel close to, at ease        .6 (.5, .7) **
to talk with, can call                 1
on for help
Religious support                      1
(attendance)                 1.5 (1.3, 1.8) **
Received help with                     1
transport or running          .6 (.5, .7) **
errands
Received help with                     1
teaching, coaching, or       1.2 (.9, 1.6)
giving practical advice
Helped someone with                    1
domestic or outdoor          2.0 (1.5, 2.5) **
work, home maintenance
Helped someone with                    1
transport or running         1.8 (1.5, 2.2) **
errands
Helped someone with                    1
child care                   1.8 (1.4, 2.3) **
Volunteer work
                             2.4 (2.0, 3.0) **
Donating money or goods                1
to an organization           2.3 (1.9, 2.8) **
Member or participant                  1
of union or professional     1.4 (1.1, 1.9) **
organization
Member or participant of               1
sports or recreation         2.6 (1.9, 3.5) **
league or club
Member or participant of               1
cultural, educational,       2.4 (1.8, 3.2) **
or hobby group
Member or participant of               1
religious-affiliated         2.1 (1.6, 2.6) **
group
Member or participant                  1
of a school group,           2.0 (1.4, 2.8) **
neighborhood, civic or
community organization
Voted last federal                     1
election                     1.8 (1.5, 2.3) **
Searched for information               1
on a political issue         1.6 (1.2, 2.1) **
Signed a petition                      1
                             1.8 (1.4, 2.3) **
Spoke out at public                    1
meeting                      1.7 (1.1, 2.4) **
Took part in a                         1
demonstration or march       1.5 (.8, 2.5)
Volunteered for a                      1
political party              2.0 (1.2, 3.4) **
Whom in your neighborhood              1
do you know                  1.5 (1.3, 1.8) **
Place where neighbors                  1
help each other              1.7 (1.4, 2.2) **
Duration of residence                  1
                             1.3 (1.1, 1.6) *
Safe from crime walking                1
home alone after dark
                             1.7 (1.4, 2.1) **
Worried when home alone                1
at night                     1.5 (1.2, 1.9) **
Education                     .5 (.4, .6) **
                              .9 (.6, 1.2)
                                       1

Age                          1.6 (1.2, 2.0) **
                             1.4 (1.1, 1.8) **
                                       1
Gender                                 1
                              .9 (.7, 1.0)
Marital status                         1
                             1.5 (1.3, 1.8) **
Income                                 1
                             1.4 (1.1, 1.8) **
                             2.8 (2.1, 3.7) **
                             1.3 (1.0, 1.6) *

* p < .05.

** p < .01.

Table 3
Personal and Environmental Resources Predicting Life Satisfaction
among Canadian Seniors

                                                 Life satisfaction
                                                     (time use)
                                                     Odds ratio
Dependent variable                                   (95 % CI)

Health and activity limitations
  Perceived health (good/excellent)             2.59 (2.04-3.29) ***
  Trouble going to or falling asleep(yes)       1.67 (1.34-2.07) ***
  Physical or mental condition limiting         2.26 (1.74-2.94) ***
  activity at school or work (yes)
  Physical or mental condition limiting
  activity at home (yes)
Civic engagement
  Donating money or goods to an                  .70 (.53-.91) **
  Organization (yes)
  Member or participant of cultural,             .63 (.45-.88) **
  educational, or hobby (theater, book,
  bridge) group (yes)
  Member or participant in sports or
  recreation league or club (yes)
  Voted in last federal election (yes)
Physical environment
  Whom in your neighborhood do you know          .77 (.62-.96) *
  (many/most)
  Safe From crime walking home alone after
  dark (reasonably/very safe)
  Place where neighbors help each other (yes)
Quality social support
  Number of relatives whom you feel
  close to, at ease to talk with, can call
  on for help (3 or more)
    None
    1-2
  Number of friends whom you feel
  close to, at ease to talk with, can call
  on for help (3 or more)
    None                                         .54 (.38-.77) **
    1-2                                          .75 (.b7-.98) *
  Attends religious services or meetings
  other than on special occasions?
  (attends yearly, monthly, weekly)
The sense of mastery                            1.10 (1.07-1.13) **
Control variables
  Annual income (unknown)
    <15000
    $15,000-$29,999
    >30000
  Marital status (married)
  Gender (male)                                 1.72 (1.36-2.17) ***
  Age (80+)
    60-69                                       1.36 (1.00-1.84)
    70-79                                       1.52 (1.12-2.07) **
  Education (postsecondary or higher)
    Less than secondary
    Secondary graduate
N                                                     4,331
Wald F, degrees of freedom                     78.31, 19 ***
Nagelkerke [R.sup.2]                                   0.12

                                                  Life satisfaction
                                                      (health)
                                                     Odds ratio
Dependent variable                                    (95% CI)

Health and activity limitations
  Perceived health (good/excellent)               .13 (.11-.17) ***
  Trouble going to or falling asleep(yes)        1.83(1.47-2.29) ***
  Physical or mental condition limiting          2.49(1.89-3.29) ***
  activity at school or work (yes)
  Physical or mental condition limiting
  activity at home (yes)
Civic engagement
  Donating money or goods to an
  Organization (yes)
  Member or participant of cultural,
  educational, or hobby (theater, book,
  bridge) group (yes)
  Member or participant in sports or
  recreation league or club (yes)
  Voted in last federal election (yes)
Physical environment
  Whom in your neighborhood do you know
  (many/most)
  Safe From crime walking home alone after        .76 (.61-.95) *
  dark (reasonably/very safe)
  Place where neighbors help each other (yes)
Quality social support
  Number of relatives whom you feel
  close to, at ease to talk with, can call
  on for help (3 or more)
    None                                          .60 (.41-.89) *
    1-2                                           .85 (.66-1.09)
  Number of friends whom you feel
  close to, at ease to talk with, can call
  on for help (3 or more)
    None
    1-2
  Attends religious services or meetings
  other than on special occasions?
  (attends yearly, monthly, weekly)
The sense of mastery                             1.07 (1.05-.1.10) ***
Control variables
  Annual income (unknown)
    <15000                                        .93 (.70-1.23)
    $15,000-$29,999                              1.06 (.80-1.40)
    >30000                                       1.50 (1.10-2.06) *
  Marital status (married)
  Gender (male)                                  1.30 (1.05-1.61) *
  Age (80+)
    60-69
    70-79
  Education (postsecondary or higher)
    Less than secondary
    Secondary graduate
N                                                       4,459
Wald F, degrees of freedom                        85.41, 18 ***
Nagelkerke [R.sup.2]                                     0.21

                                                 Life satisfaction
                                                     (finances)
                                                     Odds ratio
Dependent variable                                    (95% CI)

Health and activity limitations
  Perceived health (good/excellent)              1.79 (1.45-2.20) ***
  Trouble going to or falling asleep(yes)        1.32(1.08-1.61) **
  Physical or mental condition limiting          1.36(1.03-1.80) *
  activity at school or work (yes)
  Physical or mental condition limiting
  activity at home (yes)
Civic engagement
  Donating money or goods to an                   .59 (.47-.74) ***
  Organization (yes)
  Member or participant of cultural,              .67 (.53-.85) **
  educational, or hobby (theater, book,
  bridge) group (yes)
  Member or participant in sports or
  recreation league or club (yes)
  Voted in last federal election (yes)            .74 (.56-.99) *
Physical environment
  Whom in your neighborhood do you know
  (many/most)
  Safe From crime walking home alone after
  dark (reasonably/very safe)
  Place where neighbors help each other (yes)     .77 (.63-.95) *
Quality social support
  Number of relatives whom you feel
  close to, at ease to talk with, can call
  on for help (3 or more)
    None
    1-2
  Number of friends whom you feel
  close to, at ease to talk with, can call
  on for help (3 or more)
    None
    1-2
  Attends religious services or meetings
  other than on special occasions?
  (attends yearly, monthly, weekly)
The sense of mastery                             1.08 (1.05-1.10) ***
Control variables
  Annual income (unknown)
    <15000                                        .57 (.46-.71) ***
    $15,000-$29,999                               .80 (.63-1.02)
    >30000                                       2.21 (1.66-2.96) ***
  Marital status (married)                        .50 (.42-.60) ***
  Gender (male)                                  1.84 (1.53-2.20) ***
  Age (80+)
    60-69                                         .50 (.37-.68) ***
    70-79                                         .62 (.45-.54) **
  Education (postsecondary or higher)
    Less than secondary                           .82 (.68-.98) *
    Secondary graduate                            .88 (.66-1.16)
N                                                       4,126
Wald F, degrees of freedom                      57.73, 18 ***
Nagelkerke [R.sup.2]                                     0.14

                                                 Life satisfaction
                                                  (main activity)
                                                     Odds ratio
Dependent variable                                    (95% CI)

Health and activity limitations
  Perceived health (good/excellent)               .42 (.32-.54) ***
  Trouble going to or falling asleep(yes)        1.71 (1.35-2.18) ***
  Physical or mental condition limiting
  activity at school or work (yes)
  Physical or mental condition limiting          2.41 (1.88-3.11) ***
  activity at home (yes)
Civic engagement
  Donating money or goods to an                   .70 (.52-.93) *
  Organization (yes)
  Member or participant of cultural,
  educational, or hobby (theater, book,
  bridge) group (yes)
  Member or participant in sports or              .62 (.43-.88) **
  recreation league or club (yes)
  Voted in last federal election (yes)
Physical environment
  Whom in your neighborhood do you know
  (many/most)
  Safe From crime walking home alone after
  dark (reasonably/very safe)
  Place where neighbors help each other (yes)
Quality social support
  Number of relatives whom you feel
  close to, at ease to talk with, can call
  on for help (3 or more)
    None                                          .59 (.40-.87) **
    1-2                                           .89 (.69-1.16)
  Number of friends whom you feel
  close to, at ease to talk with, can call
  on for help (3 or more)
    None                                          .70 (.48-1.01)
    1-2                                           .75 (.59-.96) *
  Attends religious services or meetings          .73 (.58-.92) **
  other than on special occasions?
  (attends yearly, monthly, weekly)
The sense of mastery                             1.10 (1.06-1.13) ***
Control variables
  Annual income (unknown)
    <15000                                        .86 (.66-1.14)
    $15,000-$29,999                               .94 (.69-1.28)
    >30000                                       1.46 (1.02-2.09) *
  Marital status (married)
  Gender (male)                                  1.63 (1.28-2.07) ***
  Age (80+)
    60-69
    70-79
  Education (postsecondary or higher)
    Less than secondary
    Secondary graduate
N                                                      4,314
Wald F, degrees of freedom                      61.24, 21 ***
Nagelkerke [R.sup.2]                                    0.14

Note: Regression coefficients are weighted to represent the
proportions of all seniors in the population.

* p < .05.
** p < .01.

Reference groups are in parentheses.