Social capital, deprivation and self-rated health: Does reporting heterogeneity play a role? Results from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing

Abstract

Self-rated health (SRH) is commonly assessed in large surveys, though responses can be 6 influenced by different individuals' perceptions of and beliefs about health. Therefore, 7instead of providing evidence of 'true' health disparities across groups, findings may actually 8 reflect reporting heterogeneity. 9Using data from participants aged 50 years and older from the English Longitudinal 10 Study of Ageing (ELSA) Wave 3 (2006/07; participation rate =73%), associations between 11 three dimensions of social capital (local area & trust, social support and social networks), 12 deprivation and SRH were examined using the vignette methodology in 2341 individuals 13 who completed both the self-report and at least one of the 18 vignettes. Analysis employed 14 a hierarchical probit model (HOPIT). 15Individuals expressing low local area & trust social capital (beta= -0.276, p<0.001) 16and those with poor social networks (beta= -0.280, p<0.001) were more likely to report poor 17 SRH in HOPIT models accounting for reporting heterogeneity, but unadjusted ordered probit 18 analyses still correctly show a negative relationship between low local area & trust social 19 capital (beta= -0.243, p<0.001) and those with poor social networks (beta= -0.210, p<0.01), 20 though they somewhat tend to underestimate its strength. Neither social support nor 21 deprivation appeared to have any effect on SRH regardless of reporting heterogeneity. Empirical evidence has consistently demonstrated a relationship between social 48 capital and self-rated health (SRH) (Chen and Meng, 2015; Giordano et al., 2012; Kawachi et 49 al., 1999; Kawachi and Berkman, 2014; Koutsogeorgou et al., 2015;Nieminen et al., 2013 Nieminen et al., , 50 2010, but because there is no 'gold standard' of how to measure social capital, the strength 51 of the association is uncertain. A simple definition of social capital is: the "resources that are 52 accessed by individuals as a result of their membership of a network or a group" (Kawachi 53 and Berkman, 2014). While there is a debate around the conceptualisation of social capital 54 (Kawachi et al., 2004;Poortinga, 2006; Szreter and Woolcock, 2004) most agree that it is 55 multidimensional and that it carries different interpretations depending on who defines it 56and on their disciplinary traditions. 57Social capital has been suggested to improve health through norms and attitudes 58 that influence healthy behaviours, and psychosocial networks that increase access to health 59 care and mechanisms that enhance self-esteem (Kawachi et al., 1999; Kawachi and 60 Berkman, 2014; Lindström, 2008). Conversely, social capital can also have a negative impact 61 on health, including the promotion (but also cessation) of risky behaviours (e.g. smoking), 62 exchanging wrong information, the exclusion of 'outsiders', and downward-levelling norms 63 (Burt, 1992;Campos-Matos et al., 2016; Christakis and Fowler, 2008; Kawachi and Berkman, 64 2014;Rosenquist et al., 2011). Interventions have been conducted to evaluate ...

The Relationship between Social Cohesion and Urban Green Space: An Avenue for Health Promotion

“…Conversely, people who are socially isolated tend to be less healthy [57] and susceptible to stress [28], depression [58], and cardiovascular issues [59]. O’Doherty et al observed that people with a low level of local trust and diminished social networks were more likely to report poor health [60]. Health stressors can also have disproportionate implications across socioeconomic groups [61,62,63,64,65], with those in urban and impoverished areas possibly more likely to experience negative health outcomes.…”

“…For example, some studies measure social capital with one item while other studies use more complex measures making it challenging to compare their findings [44]. There does not appear to be a standard way to measure social capital (and social cohesion) [60] and scholars note different dimensions of it would be informative [120]. It is possible that there are various ways to measure social integration and mechanisms of support across social demographics (e.g., age, race, economic status) and cultures [100].…”

Factors related to preference for participation and degree of commitment in community activities among older adults in Japanese depopulated areas

“…we found significant associations with both preference for participation and degree of commitment. Perhaps the wish to use health con- Furthermore, Omariba and Ng (2011) reported that those who had higher health literacy expressed higher self-rated health, which is also associated with social capital (Arezzo & Giudici, 2017;O'Doherty, French, Steptoe, & Kee, 2017). The Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare stated that social factors consisted of connection, reliance and social participation; higher self-rated health leads to higher social capital, and, in turn, increases preference for participation, degree of commitment and social participation.…”

Does Migrant Status and Household Registration Matter? Examining the Effects of City Size on Self-Rated Health

“…Income (IN): Researchers have begun to explore the relation between income inequality and health [47]. The relationship between SRH and deprivation has been demonstrated in a rich existing literature, which has shown that material deprivation is important predictor of SRH [48,49]. This is explained by the fact that income inequality produces differences in social status for individuals, a factor which has been associated with negative impacts on SRH in western countries [50].…”