Individual-level measures of social capital as predictors of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: a population-based prospective study of men and women in Finland

Abstract

Individual-level social capital was assessed for prediction of mortality in a nationally representative study population aged 30-99 years at the baseline. A total of 90% of the original sample had participated in a comprehensive health examination (Mini-Finland Health Survey) in 1978-1980. After the first 5 years of the 24-year follow-up period, 1,196 of 3,014 men and 1,280 of 3,689 women died. Individual-level social capital was determined by factor analysis that revealed three factors: residential stability, leisure participation and interpersonal trust. Factor analysis showed a gender difference in leisure social participation. All-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard models. Adjusted for demographic, life style and biological risk factors, and for health and socio-economic status, leisure participation was associated with reduced all-cause mortality in men (hazard ratio, HR: 0.94; 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.89-1.00). This association seems to be related to economic status in men. Age modifies the effect of interpersonal trust on all-cause mortality in men. In women, leisure participation (HR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.91-1.00) and interpersonal trust (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.51-0.93) predicted all-cause mortality, and the latter also cardiovascular mortality (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.86-1.00). The associations between individual-level social capital and mortality are gender- and age-related. Understanding the gender and age perspectives appears to be essential for better insight into the interrelations between social capital and health.

Individual social capital, neighbourhood deprivation, and self-rated health in England

“…These elements foster social cohesion and cooperation with several beneficial outcomes. Research has found that beneficial health outcomes are associated with having trust in others (Fujiwara & Kawachi, 2008;Giordano & Lindström, 2010;Hyyppä et al, 2007;Nieminen et al, 2010;Poortinga, 2006;Snelgrove et al, 2009;Tampubolon et al, 2011), socializing with friends, relatives, colleagues or neighbours (Veenstra, 2000;Ziersch, 2005), and participating in associations (Giordano & Lindström, 2010;Giordano et al, 2011;Hyyppä et al, 2007;Lindström et al, 2004;Nieminen et al, 2010;Poortinga, 2006). However, the evidence for the health benefits of norms of reciprocity and mutual aid is inconclusive (Fujiwara & Kawachi, 2008;Giordano et al, 2011).…”

Measuring aspects of social capital in a gerontological perspective

“…In this study, social relations were used at community level. Other studies have used social participation as an indicator for social capital, but at the individual level (Lindström et al 2002;Hyyppä et al 2007).…”

“…1 for further details on the questions. Social participation is often used as a measure of social capital (Putnam 2000;Lindström et al 2002;Hyyppä et al 2007), whereas the use of other aspects of social relations or combined measures of social relations have, to our knowledge, not earlier been included in measures of social capital. Cattel's ( 2001) study about the mediating role of social networks and social capital shows that some types of social networks facilitate social capital, while other types do not.…”

“…Different kinds of contextual or compositional measurements have been used, as well as participation in elections, crime rates, sociodemographic characteristics, different kinds of measurements related to the neighbourhood characteristics, and measures of social relations at the individual level (Bowling et al 2002;Young et al 2004;Locher et al 2005;Stafford et al 2005;Cagney 2006;Wight et al 2006;Bowling and Stafford 2007;Kondo et al 2007;Islam et al 2008;Nummela et al 2008;Subramanian et al 2008). Previous studies are characterized by using broad age groups (from young to old people) in the same study (Hyyppä et al 2007;Cagney and Wen 2008;Engström et al 2008). Further, the studies do not reflect common definitions of social capital, and often they only measure few aspects of social capital or they combine different aspects of social capital into one score (De Silva 2006;Harpham 2008).…”

Partnership and Social Capital as the Resources for Pupils` Health and Well-Being in School Communities - A Follow-Up Study in Finland~!2009-08-19~!2010-02-18~!2010-07-08~!

“…Abel (2008) has examined health and health promotion activities especially from the point of view of cultural capital [20]. In earlier studies social capital, as one form of capital, has been defined as wide welfare-related effects in the promotion of the health and well-being of adults, children and adolescents [22,24,25], so it is justified to adapt the theory of social capital also in the well-being and health of school communities. In this article we focus on social capital from the point of view of social support networks and partnership as the resources of the school community's and pupils' health and well-being by applying Abel's model of the forms of capital and contextualizing it in the school community (Fig.…”