Village characteristics and health of rural Chinese older adults: Examining the CHARLS Pilot Study of a rich and poor province

Abstract

shows that Gansu and Zhejiang were significantly different on the dependent and most independent variables. The NBR models show that at the personal-level, decreased risk of physical limitations was associated with being male, less than 60 years old, married, higher in education, and higher in household expenditures (proxy for income). At the village-level, decreased risk of limitations was associated with a continuous supply of electricity, not using coal in the household, the existence of a sewage system, low cost of electricity, and village wealth. Decreased risk of physical limitations was also associated with various characteristics of China's New Cooperative Medical Scheme (NCMS), an insurance program for rural older adults.Policy implications for improved health of rural older adults include: (1) continued use of China's NCMS, (2) establishment of village sewage systems, (3) ending the use of coal in the home, and (4) increased educational opportunities focused on health.

Late‐life depression in Rural China: do village infrastructure and availability of community resources matter?

“…Two studies report significant associations between neighborhood features and physical health outcomes among older persons in China. One suggests that environmental, economic, and social characteristics of rural villages in China are associated with physical function of middle-age and older adults (Yeatts et al, 2013). Another finds that neighborhood socioeconomic status (e.g., labor force participation) and physical environment (e.g., air pollution) predict physical disability and mortality in older Chinese (Zeng et al, 2010).…”

Conceptual and Operational Considerations in Identifying Socioenvironmental Factors Associated with Disability among Community-Dwelling Adults

“…Our searches yielded 12,346 articles, of which 35 met the three inclusion criteria [ 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 ]. This article base was then supplemented with an additional eight articles [ 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 ] identified in the references of the 35 articles identified in our searches.…”

“…Other studies were not based on any disability-specific conceptual model. Many considered disability as an indicator of health or morbidity [ 24 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 42 , 44 , 56 , 57 , 63 ]. Most justified their analyses by presenting possible explanations for the differential distribution of disability according to socioenvironmental factors, drawing on previously published empirical reports.…”

“…Apparently similar activities were evaluated using different operational forms of activity. For example, walking was evaluated in terms of survey questions referring to (i) various objective distances (50 feet [ 47 ], quarter mile [ 25 ], half mile [ 29 , 48 ], 100 yards [ 46 ], 200 m [ 57 ], 400 m [ 52 ], and 100 m, 500 m, and two km [ 35 ]); (ii) various subjective distances (across a room [ 27 , 40 , 55 ], inside the home [ 37 , 38 , 39 ], several blocks [ 30 , 31 , 36 , 64 ], and outside the home [ 39 , 62 , 65 ]) or intensities (“running or jogging about 1 km” [ 56 ]); (iii) length of time spent walking (5 min [ 51 ]), and (iv) without any distance anchor whatsoever (simply walking [ 33 , 34 , 42 , 61 ]). Further, qualitatively different levels of precision were used in referring to apparently identical activities, such as dressing [ 28 , 36 , 61 ], “flexibility for dressing” [ 58 ] (p. 477) and “donning and removing a jacket” [ 47 ] (p. 102).…”

“…Most studies expressed disability dichotomously (with various cut points applied over a variable number of activities). Some used multi-category measures [ 30 , 58 , 64 ], others used interval scales of varying ranges [ 47 , 54 , 60 ], and some used a count of the number of dimensions in which a difficulty/limitation was reported [ 28 , 34 , 56 , 59 , 61 ]. In two studies [ 45 , 53 ], a disability measure was derived from the translation of categorical frequencies of performed activities (almost every day, at least once a week, at least once a month, less than once a month, never) into the sum of numbers of days for which disability was experienced.…”