Social network typologies of older people: A cross-national literature review

Guadalupe, Sónia; Vicente, Henrique Testa

doi:10.1590/1413-812320212611.3.23072019

HEALTH AND VULNERABILITY AMONG THE ELDERLY • Ciênc. saúde coletiva 26 (suppl 3) • 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-812320212611.3.23072019 linkcopy

Social network typologies of older people: A cross-national literature review

Tipologias de redes sociais da população idosa: Uma revisão transnacional da literatura

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

This article presents an issue narrative non-systematic review about social network typologies for the older population. We analysed 18 studies with large samples from 14 countries worldwide. The position of family ties, network composition, network size, frequency of contacts and community participation are central to social network typologization in the older population. Restricted and diverse networks emerged in typologies associated, respectively, with less and more effective social support features, and are good predictors of well-being, health, mental health, social support and social participation. Cross-nationally, there is an unequal distribution of the construction of network typologies. The different typologies, that should be culturally grounded, provide guidelines to intervention planning, inform social service providers about emerging needs and contribute to social policy debate.

Key words:
Social networks; Social support; Family; Older people

Author(s)/Year	Country or Region	Participants	Method	Criterion variables	Network type designations
Mugford and Kendig (1986)¹⁶	Australia	1,050 participants aged 60+	Descriptive and categorical.	• Size • Multiplexity	1) attenuated: low-low 2) intense: low-high 3) diffuse: high-low 4) complex: high-high 5) balanced: medium-medium
Wenger (1989; 1991)¹⁷^,¹⁸	North Wales (UK)	534 individuals aged 65+	Descriptive and categorical.	• Proximity of close kin • Proportion of family, friends and neighbors • Levels of interaction between the old persons and their families, friends, neighbors and community groups	1) family dependent support network or local family dependent 2) locally integrated support network 3) local self-contained support network 4) wider community-focused support network 5) private restricted support network
Litwin (1995)²¹^,²²	Israel	254 elderly Soviet Jews emigrated in Israel, aged 62+	Cluster analysis: Quick Cluster procedure (K-means)	• Composition • Size • Percentage of intimates • Duration of ties • Frequency of contact • Residential proximity	1) kin network 2) family intensive network 3) friend-focused network 4) diffuse tie network
Melkas and Jylhä (1996)³⁰	Finland	1,655 elders aged 60+	Cluster analysis: K-means.	• Breadth of the network (number of friends) • Depth of the network (closeness between network members; whether or not respondents have at least one confidant) • Everyday interaction (frequency of meetings with members of the network) • Pratical support (help received and help provided)	1) endowed network 2) perceived network 3) agentic network 4) family-intensive network 5) defective network
Auslander (1996)²⁸	Israel	200 participants aged 60 +	Principal component analysis (varimax rotation)	• Three social support measures (affective, affirmational, and instrumental supportiveness) • Average frequency and duration of contact • Six components of network membership (spouse, children, other family, friends, and neighbors) • Attendance at religious services • Two indicators of network reduction (loss during the past year and ammount of support lost)	1) supportive network 2) replacement network 3) traditional network
Stone and Rosenthal (1996)²⁹	Canada	3,186 participants aged 65+	Cluster analysis: Quick Cluster procedure (K-means)	• Network-size index • Index of the relative (proportional) shares of the following components of the network size index - children, siblings, friends, parents, and spouse • Living arranangement (household composition) • Index of the frequency of seeing and telephoning each of children, siblings, friends, and parents	1) small: friendship-poor and socially isolated 2) small: child-focused 3) small: extended-family and friend-focused 4) medium: balanced 5) large: balanced 6) very large: balanced
Litwin (1997)²⁴	Israel	4,214 Israelite elders, aged 60+	Cluster analysis: K-means.	• Married • Number of proximate children • Frequency of sibling contact • Frequency of friend contact • Having a helpful neighbor • Frequency of synagogue attendance	1) diversified support network 2) friends-and-neighbour-based support network 3) narrow family-focused network 4) attenuated network 5) religious family-focused network 6) traditional extended family network
Litwin (2001)²⁶	Israel	2,079 elderly Jews in Israel aged 60+	Cluster analysis: K-means.	• Current marital status • Number of adult children residing in the elder’s vicinity • Frequency of contact on the part of the elder with his or her adult children • Frequency of contact with friends • Frequency of contact with neighbors • Frequency of attendance at a synagogue • Frequency of attendance at a social club	1) diverse network 2) friends network 3) neighbours network 4) family network 5) restricted network
Fiori et al. (2006)³¹	USA	1,669 adults aged 60+	Cluster analysis: K-means.	• Married • Number of children • Contact with children • Religious services attendance • Contact with friends • Meetings attendance	1) nonfamily-restricted 2) nonfriends 3) family 4) diverse 5) friends
Fiori et al. (2007)³²	Berlin, Germany	516 older adults aged 70+	Cluster analysis: K-means.	• Married • Total network size • Proportion in Berlin • Frequency of contacts: family • Frequency of contacts: friends • Number of activities • Proportion: close others • Instrumental support • Emotional support • Satisfaction with family or friends	1) diverse-supported 2) family focused 3) friend focused-supported 4) friend focused-unsupported 5) restricted-nonfriends-unsatisfied 6) restricted-nonfamily-unsupported
Cheng et al. (2009)³³	China	1,005 older adults aged 59+	Cluster analysis: K-means.	• Total network size • Frequency of contact with immediate kin • Support exchange with immediate kin • Frequency of contact with distant kin • Support exchange with distant kin • Frequency of contact with non-kin • Support exchange with non-kin • Engagement in social activity	1) diverse 2) friend focused 3) restricted 4) family focused 5) distant family
Doubova et al. (2010)³⁵	México	4,190 older adults aged 60+	Cluster analysis: K-means.	• Total number of family members • Having a life partner • Having children • Having friends • Belonging to a community group • Frequency of contact with family and friends	1) diverse with community participation 2) diverse without community participation 3) widowed 4) nonfriends-restricted 5) nonfamily-restricted
Litwin and Shiovitz-Ezra (2011)²⁷	USA	1,462 elderly Americans aged 60+	Cluster analysis: K-means.	• Current marital status • Number of children • Number of close relatives • Number of friends • Frequency of getting together with neighbors • Frequency of attendance at religious services • Frequency of attendance at organized group meetings	1) diverse network 2) friend network 3) congregant network 4) family network 5) restricted network
Cabral et al. (2013)³⁶	Portugal	999 participants aged 50+	Descriptive and categorical.	• Size • Composition	1) small predominantly familial network 2) small predominantly nonfamily network 3) big predominantly familial network 4) big predominantly nonfamily network
Burholt and Dobbs (2014)³⁷	UK, India and Bangladesh	590 participants aged 55+	Cluster analysis: K-means.	• Network size • Proportion of the network classified by gender, age, kin and non-kin • Proximity (living in the participant’s household or not) • Formal help	1) multigenerational households: older integrated networks 2) multigenerational households: younger family networks 3) family and friends integrated networks 4) non-kin restricted networks
Park et al. (2014)³⁸	South Korea	4,251 South Korean seniors aged 65+	Cluster analysis: two-step cluster.	• Marital status • Social activities • Family size • Physical proximity to children • Frequency of contact with children • Frequency of contact with friends • Support from children and family	1) restricted type 2) couple-focused type 3) friend type 4) diverse type
Park et al. (2015)³⁹	USA	1,092 older Korean immigrants in Florida and New York aged 60+	Latent class analysis	• Marital status • Living arrangement • Number of close family members • Frequency of contact with close family members • Number of close friends • Frequency of contact with close friends • Participation in religious meetings • Participation in organized meetings	1) diverse 2) unmarried/diverse 3) married/co-residence 4) family focused 5) unmarried/restricted 6) restricted
Li and Zhang (2015)³⁴	China	4,190 older Chinese aged 64+	Cluster analysis: K-means.	• Current marital status • Number of close children • Frequency of playing cards and/or mahjong • Frequency of attending organized social activities • Support from family • Support from friends/neighbors	1) diverse 2) friend 3) family 4) restricted

	Structural		Functional/Interactional or contextual							Other
Study	Size (a)	Composition (b)	Geographic dispersion (c)	Frequency of contact (d)	Social support (e)	Social participation and/or engagement (f)	Intimacy/closeness (g)	Multiplexity of ties (h)	Duration of ties (Network stability) (i)	Satisfaction with relationships (j)	Network reduction (k)	Marital status (l)	Living arrangement (m)
Mugford and Kendig (1986)¹⁶	🗸							ü
Wenger (1989; 1991)¹⁷^,¹⁸		🗸	🗸	🗸
Litwin (1995)²¹^,²²	🗸	🗸	🗸	🗸			🗸		🗸
Melkas and Jylhä (1996)³⁰	🗸			🗸	🗸		🗸
Auslander (1996)²⁸		🗸		🗸	🗸	🗸					🗸
Stone and Rosenthal (1996)²⁹	🗸	🗸		🗸									🗸
Litwin (1997)²⁴	🗸	🗸		🗸		🗸						🗸
Litwin (2001)²⁶	🗸	🗸		🗸		🗸						🗸
Fiori et al. (2006)³¹	🗸	🗸		🗸		🗸						🗸
Fiori et al. (2007)³²	🗸	🗸	🗸	🗸	🗸	🗸	🗸			🗸		🗸
Cheng et al. (2009)³³	🗸	🗸		🗸	🗸	🗸
Doubova et al. (2010)³⁵	🗸	🗸		🗸		🗸						🗸
Litwin and Shiovitz-Ezra (2011)²⁷	🗸	🗸		🗸		🗸						🗸
Cabral et al. (2013)³⁶	🗸	🗸
Burholt and Dobbs (2014)³⁷	🗸	🗸	🗸		🗸
Park et al. (2014)³⁸	🗸	🗸	🗸	🗸	🗸	🗸						🗸
Park et al. (2015)³⁹	🗸	🗸		🗸		🗸						🗸	🗸
Li and Zhang (2015)³⁴	🗸	🗸			🗸	🗸						🗸
Frequency (percentage)	16 (88.9%)	16 (88.9%)	5 (27.8%)	14 (77.8%)	7 (38.9%)	11 (61.1%)	3 (16.7%)	1 (5.6%)	1 (5.6%)	1 (5.6%)	1 (5.6%)	9 (50.0%)	2 (11.1%)

location_on

ABRASCO - Associação Brasileira de Saúde Coletiva Av. Brasil, 4036 - sala 700 Manguinhos, 21040-361 Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brazil, Tel.: +55 21 3882-9153 / 3882-9151 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brazil
E-mail: cienciasaudecoletiva@fiocruz.br

rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[TFN1] Source: Elaborated by the authors.