ArticleBMC public health2025
Does consistency between actual living arrangements and expectations (ALIVE) matter? A population-based longitudinal study of older adults.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEvidence indicates that living arrangements significantly influence the well-being and health of older adults. However, the psychological needs of this population have increasingly emerged as important public health concerns, with preferences regarding living arrangements serving as a key determinant. Ignoring this issue can lead to incomplete or inaccurate assessments of how various living arrangements affect their health. To better understand this impact, this study investigates the relationship between living arrangements and survival outcomes among older adults, while considering the alignment between Actual Living Arrangements and Expectations (ALivE).
methodsData for this study were sourced from the China Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey (CLHLS) covering the period from 2005 to 2018. Living arrangements were assessed based on participants’ self-reported expect living arrangement (indicating preference) and current situations in the questionnaire, categorized into “living alone (or with a spouse only)”, “co-residence with children”, or “living in an institution”. Survival status and date of death were determined through interviews with close family members during each survey round. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used for longitudinal analysis, and strategies for heterogeneity analysis were employed to identify vulnerable subgroups.
resultsThe study included 4,272 older adults, of whom 2,188 (51.22%) died during the follow-up period (2008 to 2018). The median survival time was 5 years. Compared to individuals with consistent living arrangements, those with discrepancies between actual and preferred arrangements had a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.36 (95% CI: 1.20–1.53), indicating a 36% increased risk of death. Sensitivity to these inconsistencies was greater among males, individuals with fixed occupations before age 60, those with average or difficult economic conditions, individuals with unfavorable dietary patterns, and those who are not currently exercising.
conclusionsThis study highlights the significance of aligning older adults’ living arrangements with their preferences. The association with health is more closely related to whether living arrangements match personal desires rather than the specific type of arrangement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.