Content uploaded by Daniel Lüdecke
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Daniel Lüdecke on Jul 24, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Article
Social Inequalities and Loneliness as Predictors of
Ageing Well: A Trend Analysis Using Mixed Models
Jens Klein *, Olaf von dem Knesebeck and Daniel Lüdecke
Institute of Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Hamburg Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany;
o.knesebeck@uke.de (O.v.d.K.); d.luedecke@uke.de (D.L.)
*Correspondence: j.klein@uke.de; Tel.: +49-(0)40-7410-51617
Received: 2 July 2020; Accepted: 20 July 2020; Published: 23 July 2020
Abstract:
Background: This study examines if education, income, and loneliness are associated with
physical functioning and optimism in an ageing population in Germany. Furthermore, time trends of
physical functioning and optimism as well as of associations with social inequality and loneliness are
analyzed. Methods: The German Ageing Survey (DEAS), a longitudinal population-based survey
of individuals aged 40 years and older, was used (four waves between 2008 and 2017, total sample
size N=23,572). Physical functioning and optimism were introduced as indicators of ageing well.
Educational level, net equivalent income, and loneliness were used as predictors in linear mixed
models for longitudinal data. Results: Time trends show that physical functioning decreases over
time, while optimism slightly increases. Education and income are positively associated with physical
functioning, while higher loneliness correlates with lower physical functioning. Higher optimism was
associated with higher income and particularly with lower loneliness. Income and notable educational
inequalities in physical functioning increase over time. Time trends of the associations with optimism
show decreasing income inequalities and increasing disparities in loneliness. Conclusions: Increasing
educational inequalities in physical functioning and a strong association of loneliness with optimism
provide information for further interventions. Targeted health promotion among the aged and
addressing maladaptive social cognition are options to tackle these issues. Key areas for action on
healthy ageing include, for instance, the alignment of health systems to the needs of older populations
or the creation of age-friendly environments.
Keywords:
inequality; education; income; loneliness; optimism; physical functioning; ageing well;
successful ageing; multilevel analysis; Germany
1. Introduction
People in the second half of the life span constitute a significant proportion of the total population,
leading to a demographic shift in many societies. Thus, population ageing is one of the most
relevant public health issues [
1
,
2
]. The popular theoretical model of successful ageing by Rowe and
Khan includes three main components: avoiding disability and disease, high cognitive and physical
functioning, and social engagement (involvement in social and productive activities) [
3
]. There are
numerous definitions and indices of successful ageing which indicate a great homogeneity [
4
–
6
].
The majority of these concepts consist of physiological aspects (e.g., physical functioning), social
engagement (e.g., voluntary work), well-being constructs (e.g., life satisfaction), and to a lesser extent,
personal resources (e.g., resilience) and extrinsic factors (e.g., finances) [
5
]. Further conceptualizations
highlight keeping active and independent, feeling mentally and physically well, having a positive
outlook, and an absence of disease or functional limitations [
7
]. Studies assessing lay perspectives
have shown that psychosocial components are becoming more relevant and there is a need to include
physical and mental/emotional health components [
7
,
8
]. There is great variation in the terms used in
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 5314; doi:10.3390/ijerph17155314 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 5314 2 of 14
the context of ageing well concepts, including successful ageing, active ageing, healthy ageing, positive
ageing, productive ageing, and competent ageing [
9
]. Following Kendig et al. [
7
], we use the more
neutral and universal term of “ageing well”.
Numerous studies have shown significant associations between socioeconomic status
(SES)—assessed by education, income (or wealth), and occupational position—and morbidity or
mortality [
10
,
11
]. Even in modern welfare states, lower education, income, and occupational status
predict worse health outcomes in terms of a social gradient—the higher the SES, the higher the
health status and life expectancy. This also holds true for studies among the aged in many European
countries [
12
–
14
]. Material, psychosocial, and behavioural factors contribute to the explanation of social
inequalities in health [
15
]. Various research has shown positive associations between SES and physical
functioning or indices of ageing well among elderly populations in different countries [
14
,
16
–
18
], while
others have found limited evidence [
7
,
19
]. Moreover, three theoretical assumptions about ageing
and health inequalities are of particular interest [
20
,
21
]. The cumulation theory assumes that the
influence of SES on health increases continuously with age, leading to a cumulative disadvantage.
In contrast, the age-as-leveller hypothesis means that social disparities in health decrease in old
age, leading to a convergence of the status groups, while the continuity hypothesis indicates that
inequalities in earlier life persist in the second half of life. A German cross-sectional study examined
these hypotheses in terms of physical and functional limitations and discovered continuity regarding
educational and income inequalities [
21
]. In a European panel study, a cumulation of educational
inequalities and physical functioning was shown [
22
]. Longitudinal analyses from the Netherlands
showed socioeconomic inequalities (education, income, and occupational status) concerning an index
of successful ageing and only few changes over time [
16
], while some former Dutch research indicated
cumulation and continuity dependent on age. In the age group of 55–70 years, educational and income
inequalities in physical functioning increased, while these disparities did not diverge in subjects 70
years and older [
23
]. Studies investigating inequalities in optimism among elderly populations suggest
disparities, but research is sparse [
24
,
25
]. Overall, accounting for social inequalities among research on
ageing remains an important issue [26].
Furthermore, there is considerable evidence about loneliness and its correlations with physical
and mental health, but its health effects are not totally understood [
27
]. Research has shown that
loneliness is significantly associated with functional decline among the aged [
27
–
29
]. A recent study
found significant associations between loneliness and physical and mental functioning in an ageing
population [
30
]. De Jong Gierveld et al. [
31
,
32
] developed a popular loneliness scale and conceptualized
loneliness as “an individual’s subjective, cognitive evaluation of his or her social participation, or social
isolation, against the standards held for optimal embeddedness in a social network” [
31
]. It occurs
when the number of achieved relationships is smaller than desired and it is important to differentiate
between subjective feelings of loneliness and more objective social isolation, which mainly refers to a
lack of relationships with other people. There is a lack of information about longitudinal associations
with ageing well in Germany and beyond that, the social and spatial distancing in the context of the
current Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic suggests an increased relevance of loneliness,
especially for older people [
33
]. Research on further predictors of ageing well varies [
7
,
8
,
17
,
19
,
34
,
35
].
For instance, factors like age, gender, ethnicity, objective and subjective health outcomes, health
behaviour, social contacts, and volunteering were also shown to be associated with ageing well.
The measures describing ageing well in the present study were physical functioning and
optimism, which indicate a positive outlook as a source of mental health. The aim of the study
was to examine if two established indicators of social inequality (education and income) are
associated with physical functioning and optimism among the ageing population in Germany from
a longitudinal perspective. Furthermore, trends of inequalities regarding the three theoretical
assumptions (cumulation, age-as-leveller, and continuity) were analysed. Additionally, the assessment
of loneliness was introduced as a predicting factor and trend analyses were conducted in the same way.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 5314 3 of 14
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data
This study was based on data from the public release of the German Ageing Survey (DEAS),
provided by the Research Data Centre of the German Centre of Gerontology (DZA) [
36
]. The
population-based survey started in 1996 and included individuals aged 40 years and older, which is
considered the “second half of life” [
37
]. Further waves of data collection followed in 2002, 2008, 2011,
2014, and 2017. The distribution of central socio-demographic and socio-economic characteristics of
persons in the German Ageing Survey bears a high resemblance to the official statistics. Thus, the
sample can be considered as a representative sample of the population of those aged 40 years and
older in Germany [
38
]. For the present analyses, we used longitudinal data from the past four waves
(2008–2017), covering a time range of about one decade. The reason why older waves were not included
is that data from 1996 and 2002 does not include all relevant variables and questionnaires for our
subject. To reduce the problems of panel attrition and to stabilize the absolute number of respondents,
two of the four waves introduced new respondents to “refresh” the sample. In the present study, 5360
respondents participated in one wave, 3637 participated in two waves, data from 1438 respondents
was available for three waves, and for 1656 persons, data from all waves was available. To account for
panel attrition and refreshment as well as the different number of times of participation in the survey, a
complex weighting procedure was applied that combined post-stratified weights with longitudinal
attrition probability weights [
39
]. Response rates can be distinguished between how many of the
contacted people responded in each wave (baseline response rates) and how many of the respondents
of earlier waves participated again in a newer wave (panel response rates). The baseline response rates
were 36% in 2008 and 25% in 2014. No refreshments (i.e., no new baseline samples) were drawn in
2011 and 2017. Panel response rates were 49% in 2008, 58% in 2011, 63% in 2014, and 65% in 2017.
These rates are comparable to other surveys conducted in Germany [
38
]. The total sample size was N
=23,572. A written informed consent was given by every survey participant prior to the interview. An
ethical approval number for the DEAS study is not available because criteria for the need of an ethical
statement were not met (risk for the respondents, lack of information about the aims of the study,
examination of patients). This is in accordance with the German Research Foundation-guidelines. The
survey respected the Declaration of Helsinki [40].
2.2. Measures
We used two measures representing physical and mental dimensions of the ageing well concept.
Physical functioning was measured using the established Short Form-36 (SF-36) subscale [
41
]. The
degree of physical impairment is measured using an evaluation of 10 daily activities on a scale from 1
(yes, limited a lot) to 3 (no, not limited at all). All items were added up and rescaled to a score ranging
from 0–100, with higher values indicating better physical functioning. The degree of optimism, also
called the affective valence of future perspective, is a scale based on five items ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) [
42
]. These items were also added up and rescaled to a range from 0–100
in order to have comparable ranges for both outcome measures.
Socioeconomic predictors were educational level and net equivalent income. Educational level was
measured using the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) scale [
43
] and recoded
into three categories, representing low (ISCED 0-2, (pre-)primary to lower secondary education),
middle (ISCED 3-4, upper secondary to post-secondary education), and high (ISCED 5-6, tertiary
education) level of education. The income variable was measured in Euros (EUR) and represents the
needs-adjusted monthly per head income of a household. Weighting of household size was based on
the modified OECD equivalent scale that is used by Eurostat and the Federal statistical Office [
44
].
Loneliness was measured with an established 6-item short version by de Jong-Gierveld and Van Tilburg,
which has been successfully tested for validity and reliability in various European countries [
31
,
45
].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 5314 4 of 14
The six items range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Higher values indicate a higher
level of loneliness.
The following covariates were additionally introduced into the analyses: Voluntary work was
included as an indicator of social commitment and partnership status indicates a dimension of social
relations. The latter has three categories (having no partner, having a partner and living together
in the same household, and having a partner but living in different households). Voluntary work
describes if a participant carries out any honorary post in or outside of groups and organizations.
Further confounding variables included in the models were age, gender, and migrant background.
Participants’ age and gender were recorded at baseline. Migrant background describes whether
participants migrated to Germany or were born in Germany. Finally, self-rated health was included as
an indicator for the participants’ general health status. The score ranges from 1 (very bad) to 5 (very
good).
2.3. Analyses
Descriptive statistics are reported for each wave separately and for the total sample. For continuous
variables, means and standard deviations are reported. Proportions of categories are shown for discrete
variables. Linear mixed models for longitudinal data were used to analyze associations of education,
income, and loneliness with physical functioning (Model 1) and optimism (Model 2). Time trends
were analyzed using interaction between wave and education, income, as well as loneliness (Model 3
and 4). Analyses were adjusted for potential confounding factors (age, gender, migrant background,
partnership status, voluntary work, and self-rated health). To account for individual, regional,
and spatial variation, a cross-classified design using participant ID, federal state, and area of living
(urban-rural typology) were used as level-2 predictors. Furthermore, mixed models are able to deal with
imbalanced samples and within- and between-subject variation very well. Marginal and conditional
R
2
and the intraclass-correlation coefficient (ICC) are reported. The marginal R
2
refers to the variance
explained by a model’s fixed effects part, while the conditional R
2
indicates the explained variance
from the complete model. The ICC refers to the proportion of variance explained by the grouping
structure. Longitudinal post-stratification weights were rescaled for use with mixed models [46]. We
checked the models for multicollinearity. All models had a variance inflation factor (VIF) below 1.5,
indicating no severe collinearity issues [47].
Before fitting the models, all continuous variables were standardized by dividing by two standard
deviations, so a one-unit change compares to the mean +/
−
1 standard deviation. For instance, a
one-unit change in “income” indicates the difference between persons with a mean income that is
one standard deviation below the total sample’s average income and persons whose mean income
is one standard deviation above this average. Thus, coefficients of continuous predictors reflect the
differences between “lower values” and “higher values”. Furthermore, dividing by two standard
deviations makes the magnitude of scaled regression coefficients (i.e., the “strength” of an association)
comparable to non-scaled coefficients of categorical predictors [
48
]. Rescaling the data was not only
conducted to make coefficients comparable, but also to address convergence issues, which often occurs
in mixed models when predictors are on very different scales.
A major concern, especially in longitudinal data analysis, is heterogeneity bias, which occurs
for continuous time-varying predictors, such as income or self-rated health. These predictors have
an effect at level-1 (“within-subject”-effect) and at higher-level units (level-2, the subject-level, which
is the “between-subject”-effect). This inevitably leads to correlating fixed effects and error terms,
which, in turn, result in biased estimates because both the within- and between-effect are captured
in one estimate [
49
]. One often applied method to avoid the problem of heterogeneity bias is the
fixed effects regression. However, this type of regression is only able to estimate within-effects.
By using mixed models, it is possible to separate time-varying predictors into their within- and
between-components [
50
]. As such, mixed models are the preferred choice over fixed effects regression
because of their greater flexibility and generalizability and their ability to model context, including
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 5314 5 of 14
variables that are only measured at the higher level [
49
,
51
]. Hence, for the continuous time-varying
predictors income, loneliness, and self-rated health, within-effects (average change for an individual)
and between-effects (differences between status groups) were modelled. As our research questions
focus on differences between subjects or status groups, only the between-effects of predictors are
described in detail. However, the tables include all model coefficients.
All analyses were conducted using the R language for statistical computing, R Core Team, Vienna,
Austria [
52
]. The lme4-package was used to fit mixed models and estimated marginal means were
calculated using the ggeffects-package [
53
,
54
]. Calculation of R
2
as well as ICC and multicollinearity
tests were conducted with the performance-package [
55
]. All source code (in R) to reproduce the data
preparation and analysis is available at https://osf.io/dcw4x/.
3. Results
3.1. Sample Characteristics
The overall mean age was 65.3 years (total range 43–104) and the means of physical functioning
and optimism were 84 and 65, respectively (both on a scale from 0–100). Then, 91.1% of the participants
have middle or higher educational level, average income was 1850
€
, and 79.6% live in a partnership.
Further sample characteristics, including all relevant variables, are shown in Table 1. With the exception
of voluntary work and income, there were only slight changes over time.
Table 1. Sample characteristics of the German Ageing Survey (DEAS) waves 2008–2017.
Characteristic 2008 (n=6072) 2011 (n=3990) 2014 (n=7923) 2017 (n=5587) Total (N=23,572)
Physical functioning
(mean, SD 1),
(range 0–100)
86.3 (20.7) 84.2 (21.7) 83.6 (22.0) 83.2 (22.1) 84.3 (21.7)
Optimism (mean, SD),
(range 0–100) 64.0 (19.5) 64.6 (18.5) 66.1 (18.5) 66.4 (18.4) 65.3 (18.8)
Education (low), % 10.9 10.1 8.0 7.2 8.9
Education (middle), % 53.7 52.2 52.9 51.3 52.6
Education (high), % 35.4 37.7 39.1 41.5 38.5
Income 2(mean, SD) 1632.8 (933.5) 1776.3 (979.3) 1897.0 (1043.0) 2068.7 (1045.3) 1852.2 (1018.3)
Loneliness (mean, SD),
(range 1–4) 1.8 (0.6) 1.8 (0.5) 1.8 (0.6) 1.8 (0.5) 1.8 (0.5)
Age (mean, SD) 67.8 (11.9) 67.7 (11.3) 63.5 (11.9) 63.3 (11.4) 65.3 (11.9)
Age (range) 49–104 49–104 43–98 43–97 43–104
Gender (female), % 51.6 53.2 52.1 51.4 52.0
Migrant background, % 5.5 4.3 5.5 4.5 5.0
No partner, % 19.9 19.2 20.4 21.8 20.4
Partnership
(same household), % 75.8 75.8 74.9 73.7 75.0
Partnership
(different household), % 4.4 5.0 4.7 4.4 4.6
Voluntary work, % 19.6 24.7 28.0 27.4 25.1
Self-rated health
(mean, SD), (range 1–5) 3.6 (0.8) 3.5 (0.8) 3.5 (0.8) 3.5 (0.8) 3.6 (0.8)
1Standard Deviation; 2Monthly net equivalent household income in Euros (EUR).
3.2. Predictors of Physical Functioning and Optimism
The fixed effects over a period of 10 years are shown in Table 2(regression coefficients of
standardized data). Concerning the time trend (Wave), physical functioning decreases over time,
indicated by the regression coefficient of
−
2.12, while optimism is slightly increasing (0.27). Referring
to the between-effects, both medium and higher educational levels are significantly associated with
physical functioning. Furthermore, we see a gradient of education, i.e., for people with a medium
educational level, physical functioning is 3.35 points higher compared to people with low education.
For high education, it is 4.69 points higher. A similar education gradient can be found for optimism as
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 5314 6 of 14
well, although this is less pronounced and neither medium nor high educational levels are significantly
associated with optimism. People with higher income have slightly better physical functioning (1.43)
and report more optimism (3.39). Furthermore, increased loneliness is significantly associated with a
decline in both outcomes, particularly in the case of optimism (
−
13.49). Finally, all covariates except
migrant background and having a partner living in a different household show significant associations
with both outcomes. While the estimates for age and self-rated health indicate strong associations, all
further coefficients suggest rather weak relations with physical functioning or optimism.
Table 2.
Predictors of physical functioning and optimism: Model 1 and 2 without interaction
(standardized coefficients 1).
Physical Functioning Optimism
Predictors Estimates 95% CI 2pEstimates 95% CI p
(Intercept) 84.10 82.62–85.57 <0.001 63.24 61.67–64.82 <0.001
Wave −2.12 −2.30–(−1.94) <0.001 0.27 0.12–0.43 0.001
Between-Effects
Education (middle) 3.35 2.21–4.49 <0.001 0.15 −0.90–1.20 0.783
Education (high) 4.69 3.46–5.92 <0.001 0.41 −0.72–1.54 0.481
Income 1.43 0.78–2.09 <0.001 3.39 2.79–4.00 <0.001
Loneliness −1.07 −1.67–(−0.47) <0.001 −13.49 −14.04–(−12.95) <0.001
Age −9.47 −10.07–(−8.88) <0.001 −3.88 −4.42–(−3.33) <0.001
Gender (female) −3.64 −4.25–(−3.04) <0.001 −0.58 −1.13–(−0.02) 0.042
Migrant background −0.31 −1.61–1.00 0.645 1.00 −0.19–2.19 0.100
Partnership
(same household) 1.74 1.06–2.42 <0.001 0.58 −0.03–1.20 0.062
Partnership
(different household) 0.29 −0.86–1.45 0.620 0.72 −0.31–1.75 0.170
Voluntary work 0.60 0.07–1.14 0.028 0.89 0.41–1.36 <0.001
Self-rated health 22.46 21.86–23.06 <0.001 10.71 10.16–11.26 <0.001
Within-Effects
Income 0.42 0.11–0.73 0.008 0.39 0.11–0.66 0.005
Loneliness −0.31 −0.61–(−0.01) 0.045 −3.48 −3.74–(−3.21) <0.001
Self-rated health 4.61 4.30–4.92 <0.001 2.10 1.83–2.37 <0.001
ICC 30.45 0.51
Observations (N) 21,632 21,676
Marginal
R2/Conditional R20.44/0.69 0.34/0.67
1Data were standardized before fitting the model; 2confidence intervals; 3intraclass-correlation coefficient.
3.3. Time Trend of Physical Functioning and Optimism by Education, Income, and Loneliness
Figures 1and 2illustrate the time trends of social inequalities and loneliness in terms of both
outcomes of ageing well. Overall, physical functioning decreases over time (see Figure 1and
Appendix ATable A2). Regarding education, physical functioning declines considerably more for
lower educated persons. Thus, educational inequalities in physical functioning are increasing over
time. This also holds true for income inequalities, although the disparities are comparatively low.
There is hardly any change in inequalities over time regarding the difference between persons with
higher or lower loneliness. Hence, the interaction effects reveal highly significant values for education,
a weaker but significant interaction for income, and no interaction for loneliness (see Appendix A
Table A1).
Compared to physical functioning, there are less changes of optimism over time and the patterns
(
a, b, c
) differ more from each other (see Figure 2and Appendix ATable A2. The association with
education is rather inconsistent. We found a weak association between income and optimism. Optimism
decreases for persons with a higher income and increases among those with a lower income, indicating
a decline in income inequalities over time. Persons who feel lonelier report lower optimism and
disparities in loneliness (lonely vs. less lonely persons) increase over time. Interaction between
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 5314 7 of 14
education and optimism is not significant, while income and loneliness indicate low but significant
estimates (see Appendix ATable A1).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15
Figure 1. Model 3: Trend of physical functioning (PF) by educational level, income (between-effect),
and loneliness (between-effect) (a) Time trend of physical functioning by educational level. (b) Time
trend of physical functioning by income. (c) Time trend of physical functioning by loneliness. The
year of data collection is shown on the x-axis; the physical functioning score is shown on the y-axis.
Compared to physical functioning, there are less changes of optimism over time and the patterns
(a, b, c) differ more from each other (see Figure 2 and Appendix Table A2). The association with
education is rather inconsistent. We found a weak association between income and optimism.
Optimism decreases for persons with a higher income and increases among those with a lower
income, indicating a decline in income inequalities over time. Persons who feel lonelier report lower
optimism and disparities in loneliness (lonely vs. less lonely persons) increase over time. Interaction
between education and optimism is not significant, while income and loneliness indicate low but
significant estimates (see Appendix Table A1).
Figure 2. Model 4: Trend of optimism by educational level, income (between-effect), and loneliness
(between-effect) (a) Time trend of optimism by educational level. (b) Time trend of optimism by
income. (c) Time trend of optimism by loneliness. The year of data collection is shown on the x-axis;
the optimism score is shown on the y-axis.
4. Discussion
Using a longitudinal population-based survey of individuals aged 40 years and older, the aim
of the current study was to examine if education, income, and loneliness are associated with ageing
well, measured by two indicators (physical functioning and optimism). Furthermore, trends of
physical functioning and optimism as well as of associations with social inequality and loneliness
were analyzed.
4.1. Summary of the Main Findings
Figure 1.
Model 3: Trend of physical functioning (PF) by educational level, income (between-effect),
and loneliness (between-effect) (
a
) Time trend of physical functioning by educational level. (
b
) Time
trend of physical functioning by income. (
c
) Time trend of physical functioning by loneliness. The year
of data collection is shown on the x-axis; the physical functioning score is shown on the y-axis.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15
Figure 1. Model 3: Trend of physical functioning (PF) by educational level, income (between-effect),
and loneliness (between-effect) (a) Time trend of physical functioning by educational level. (b) Time
trend of physical functioning by income. (c) Time trend of physical functioning by loneliness. The
year of data collection is shown on the x-axis; the physical functioning score is shown on the y-axis.
Compared to physical functioning, there are less changes of optimism over time and the patterns
(a, b, c) differ more from each other (see Figure 2 and Appendix Table A2). The association with
education is rather inconsistent. We found a weak association between income and optimism.
Optimism decreases for persons with a higher income and increases among those with a lower
income, indicating a decline in income inequalities over time. Persons who feel lonelier report lower
optimism and disparities in loneliness (lonely vs. less lonely persons) increase over time. Interaction
between education and optimism is not significant, while income and loneliness indicate low but
significant estimates (see Appendix Table A1).
Figure 2. Model 4: Trend of optimism by educational level, income (between-effect), and loneliness
(between-effect) (a) Time trend of optimism by educational level. (b) Time trend of optimism by
income. (c) Time trend of optimism by loneliness. The year of data collection is shown on the x-axis;
the optimism score is shown on the y-axis.
4. Discussion
Using a longitudinal population-based survey of individuals aged 40 years and older, the aim
of the current study was to examine if education, income, and loneliness are associated with ageing
well, measured by two indicators (physical functioning and optimism). Furthermore, trends of
physical functioning and optimism as well as of associations with social inequality and loneliness
were analyzed.
4.1. Summary of the Main Findings
Figure 2.
Model 4: Trend of optimism by educational level, income (between-effect), and loneliness
(between-effect) (
a
) Time trend of optimism by educational level. (
b
) Time trend of optimism by income.
(
c
) Time trend of optimism by loneliness. The year of data collection is shown on the x-axis; the
optimism score is shown on the y-axis.
4. Discussion
Using a longitudinal population-based survey of individuals aged 40 years and older, the aim of
the current study was to examine if education, income, and loneliness are associated with ageing well,
measured by two indicators (physical functioning and optimism). Furthermore, trends of physical
functioning and optimism as well as of associations with social inequality and loneliness were analyzed.
4.1. Summary of the Main Findings
Firstly, results show that physical functioning decreased over time, while optimism slightly
increased. Second, different indicators of ageing well can show varying trends. Education and income
were positively associated with physical functioning, with the strongest relations for education. Higher
loneliness was related with lower physical functioning. Higher optimism was associated with higher
income and particularly with lower loneliness. Third, time trends of inequalities show various patterns.
The association between income and physical functioning was, in general, decreasing over time.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 5314 8 of 14
However, the decrease of physical functioning was somewhat less pronounced for participants with a
higher income. Thus, looking at the time trend, income inequalities related to physical functioning
were slightly increasing. Educational inequalities in physical functioning were noticeably increasing
over time. Time trends of the associations between income and optimism showed decreasing income
inequalities, while we see an opposite relationship regarding loneliness, where we found increasing
disparities over time. Accordingly, hypotheses of cumulation, continuity, or age-as-a-leveller vary for
different indicators. In terms of education and physical functioning, a cumulation of disadvantages
was shown, while for income, there was more of a trend towards continuity or rather low cumulation.
Regarding optimism, the inconsistent pattern of educational inequalities over time did not support
any theory, while the trend of income inequalities met the age-as-leveller hypothesis. Summarized,
the study’s findings highlight the importance of social determinants of health and moreover, social
inequalities in health over time. This accounts for both physical and mental health outcomes.
Furthermore, it is shown that not only objective social isolation, but also the subjective feelings of
loneliness are worth being assessed.
4.2. Comparison with Previous Research
The findings are partly in line with previous research. Different studies have shown positive
associations between income, education, and physical functioning or indices of ageing well/successful
ageing in various countries [
14
,
16
–
18
], while others found limited evidence [
7
,
19
]. Furthermore, a
study from the US reported social disparities (education, income, occupational position) in optimism
in a slightly younger sample [
24
,
25
], which is in line with our results regarding income. In terms of the
hypothesis of associations with education, income, and occupational status in the second half of the life
span, the results of a Dutch longitudinal study mainly support assumptions of continuity regarding
most outcomes (including functional health) [
16
]. Findings of a study including data from the 2002
DEAS wave suggest continuity between SES and physical functioning. However, only cross-sectional
analyses were conducted in this study, demanding further research on this topic with longitudinal
data [
21
]. A former study analyzed socioeconomic differences in changes in physical function in
older adults, indicating cumulation and continuity dependent on age. In the age group of 55–70
years, social inequalities (according to education and income) in physical function increased, while
these disparities did not further increase in subjects 70 years and older [
23
]. Moreover, our results
are supported by a European panel study, which found a cumulation of educational inequalities
and physical functioning [
22
]. Overall, these previous results in physical functioning are supported
by our findings, indicating cumulation in terms of education and continuity according to income.
Previous studies have shown that loneliness is significantly associated with functional decline among
the aged [
27
–
29
]. A recent study that also used the De Jong Gierveld loneliness scale found significant
associations between loneliness and physical and mental functioning in an ageing population [
30
]. In
addition, loneliness was negatively correlated with measures of optimism in another cross-sectional
study [56]. These findings are in line with the present results.
4.3. Strengths
One strength of this study is the large sample size, which comes from a representative
population-based and longitudinal survey of individuals 40 years and older. This allows us to
draw generalized conclusions about the ageing population in Germany. Another strength is the
inclusion of widely used and well-validated scales, both for our outcomes and some of the independent
variables, which ensures the validity of measures and comparability with other research. Furthermore,
our study shows methodological strengths by using multilevel models that account for different sources
of variability in the sample, like individual, regional, and spatial variation, which often is warranted
when data are collected according to a multi-stage sampling or repeated measures design [57].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 5314 9 of 14
4.4. Limitations
The study also has some limitations. The concept of “ageing well” consists of many aspects. Since
we used secondary data, only a selection of these aspects could be examined in our study. Furthermore,
due to the interrelationship and overlap of some aspects of ageing well, it is not always clear which
variables should be considered as outcomes and which as independent variables or predictors. Another
limitation due to the nature of this survey is the panel attrition, which was addressed by refreshing
each wave with new participants. Thus, for parts of the sample, the time trends refer to a shorter
period than the time span from 2008–2017. Additionally, the mean age of the participants slightly
decreased over time. Nevertheless, panel attrition and refreshment sampling should hardly affect our
conclusions because the complex weighting procedure, which combines post-stratified weights with
longitudinal attrition probability weights, compensates well for these shortcomings. Furthermore, the
mixed model design is eligible for imbalanced samples.
4.5. Policy Implications
In terms of implications, the major results of our study are the positive associations between
education and physical functioning as well as negative relations between loneliness and optimism.
The importance of social determinants of health through the life course is evident [
58
]. The reduction
of health inequalities in older age refers to targeted interventions of health promotion and illness
prevention among the aged [
59
]. The three basic aims of health promotion strategies for the elderly
refer to functional capacity, self-care, and social networks [
60
]. Based on a recent scoping review, the
most common types of interventions addressed to the elderly and older adults in the area of health
promotion are health education, behavior modification, and health communication [61].
Prevention programs to tackle excessive decline of mental and physical functioning among lower
status groups are possible interventions [
11
,
58
]. Given the educational inequalities, improvements
in health literacy (e.g., knowledge, beliefs, health care utilization, or health behaviors) among
disadvantaged groups and in deprived areas and, additionally, taking into account different age
groups, could reduce social disparities in ageing well [
17
]. For instance, cognitive remediation, physical
activity, nutrition, and complementary and alternative treatments are recommended issues for healthy
ageing [
62
]. When introducing prevention and intervention programs for disadvantaged groups, it is
important to account for the inverse care law, which means “that the availability of good medical care
tends to vary inversely with the need for it in the population served” [
63
], and tends to increase existing
social inequalities in health. Furthermore, for tackling not only the most disadvantaged but also the
steepness of the social gradient in health, Marmot et al. [
11
] suggest the approach of proportionate
universalism. This means that “actions must be universal, but with a scale and intensity that is
proportionate to the level of disadvantage” [
11
]. Hence, policies must be both universal to cover the
population in need as well as focused, to deploy limited resources more intensively where necessary.
In terms of loneliness, reviews showed that improving social skills, enhancing social support,
increasing opportunities for social contact, and addressing maladaptive social cognition are primary
intervention strategies, whereof the latter was found to be most successful in randomized comparison
studies [
27
,
64
]. A recent study showed that type and size of social networks play an important role in
the relationship between loneliness and mental health [
65
]. These results highlight the importance of
strengthening social relations and improving social cognition for ageing well.
5. Conclusions
The present study shows the importance of social inequalities and loneliness for ageing well.
From a longitudinal perspective, associations were identified that need to be tackled in ageing societies.
Increasing educational inequalities in physical functioning and a strong association of loneliness
with optimism provide information for interventions. Reducing inequalities over the life course and
strengthening social relations and social cognition among older populations remain major public
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 5314 10 of 14
health issues to support healthy, active, and successful ageing. The World Health Organization (WHO)
shaped the key areas for action on healthy ageing, including the alignment of health systems to the
needs of older populations, the development of systems for providing long-term care, the creation of
age-friendly environments, and the improvement of measurement, monitoring, and understanding [
66
].
However, further research is needed to understand underlying explanatory mechanisms and evaluate
effective interventions.
Author Contributions:
J.K., O.v.d.K., and D.L. developed the research questions. J.K. prepared, analyzed and
interpreted the data, and drafted and finalized the manuscript. O.v.d.K. substantially contributed to interpreting
the data and critically revised and approved the final manuscript. D.L. made an essential contribution to data
analyses and interpretation, drafting the manuscript, and critically revised and approved the final manuscript. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments:
Data stem from the public release of the German Ageing Survey (DEAS), provided by the
Research Data Centre of the German Centre of Gerontology (DZA), and funded by the Federal Ministry for Family
Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (BMFSFJ). The analysis refers to the following datasets: SUF DEAS 2008,
version 3.1, DOI: 10.5156/DEAS.2008.M.005; DEAS 2011, version 2.1, DOI: 10.5156/DEAS.2011.M.004; DEAS 2014,
version 3.0, DOI: 10.5156/DEAS.2014.M.005; DEAS 2017, version 2.0, DOI: 10.5156/DEAS.2017.M.003. Web link for
information on all datasets: https://www.dza.de/fdz/deutscher-alterssurvey/deas-dokumentation/doi-deas.html.
The DEAS data is available after signing a user contract for research purposes.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1.
Predictors of physical functioning and optimism: Model 3 and 4 with interaction (standardized
coefficients 1).
Physical Functioning Optimism
Predictors Estimates 95% CI 2pEstimates 95% CI p
(Intercept) 88.17 86.26–90.08 <0.001 64.13 62.21–66.05 <0.001
Wave −4.18 −4.81–(−3.55) <0.001 −0.07 −0.62–0.47 0.791
Between-Effects
Education, middle −0.77 −2.54–1.01 0.397 −1.12 −2.73–0.50 0.175
Education, high −0.32 −2.23–1.59 0.742 −0.05 −1.78–1.69 0.957
Income 0.26 −0.85–1.37 0.646 6.05 5.04–7.06 <0.001
Loneliness −0.67 −1.67–0.33 0.188 −12.69 −13.60–(−11.78) <0.001
Age −9.50 −10.10–(−8.90) <0.001 −3.86 −4.40–(−3.31) <0.001
Female gender −3.66 −4.27–(−3.05) <0.001 −0.59 −1.15–(−0.04) 0.036
Migration background −0.33 −1.63–0.98 0.625 1.08 −0.11–2.27 0.074
Partnership, same
household 1.72 1.04–2.40 <0.001 0.62 0.01–1.23 0.048
Partnership, different
household 0.32 −0.83–1.48 0.581 0.67 −0.36–1.70 0.201
Voluntary work 0.59 0.06–1.13 0.030 0.90 0.42–1.38 <0.001
Self-rated health 22.47 21.86–23.07 <0.001 10.71 10.16–11.25 <0.001
Within-Effects
Income 0.36 0.05–0.67 0.022 0.43 0.16–0.70 0.002
Loneliness −0.30 −0.60–0.00 0.051 −3.48 −3.74–(−3.21) <0.001
Self-rated health 4.61 4.30–4.91 <0.001 2.09 1.82–2.36 <0.001
Interaction Effects
Wave * Education, middle 2.07 1.41–2.74 <0.001 0.53 −0.04–1.11 0.069
Wave * Education, high 2.45 1.75–3.14 <0.001 0.19 −0.41–0.80 0.529
Wave * Income (between) 0.47 0.10–0.85 0.013 −1.06 −1.39–(−0.74) <0.001
Wave * Loneliness
(between)
−0.17 −0.52–0.19 0.359 −0.36 −0.67–(−0.05) 0.024
ICC 30.45 0.51
Observations 21,632 21,676
Marginal R
2
/Conditional R
20.45/0.70 0.34/0.67
1
Data were standardized before fitting the model;
2
confidence intervals;
3
intraclass-correlation coefficient;
* indicates the interaction between predictors.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 5314 11 of 14
Table A2.
Estimated marginal means (EMM) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for physical functioning
and optimism for Model 3 and 4 with interaction. This table represents the raw values from
Figures 1and 2.
Predictor Physical Functioning Optimism
EMM 195% CI EMM 195% CI
Wave Education
1
low
85.2 83.7–86.7 65.7 64.1–67.4
2 81.0 79.6–82.4 65.7 64.2–67.2
3 76.8 75.3–78.3 65.6 65.0–67.1
4 72.7 70.8–74.5 65.5 64.7–67.3
1
middle
86.5 85.4–87.6 65.2 63.9–66.4
2 84.4 83.4–85.4 65.6 64.4–66.8
3 82.3 81.3–83.3 66.1 64.8–67.3
4 80.2 79.1–81.3 66.5 65.2–67.8
1
high
87.3 86.2–88.4 65.9 64.6–67.2
2 85.6 84.6–86.6 66.0 64.8–67.2
3 83.9 82.8–84.9 66.1 64.9–67.4
4 82.1 81.0–83.2 66.2 64.9–67.5
Income
1
−1 SD
86.0 84.9–87.0 63.1 61.8–64.3
2 83.1 82.1–84.0 63.8 62.6–65.0
3 80.1 79.1–81.2 64.5 63.2–65.7
4 77.2 76.1–78.4 65.2 63.9–66.5
1
Mean
86.3 85.3–87.3 65.6 64.3–66.8
2 83.7 82.7–84.6 65.7 64.5–66.9
3 81.0 80.0–82.0 65.9 64.7–67.1
4 78.3 77.2–79.4 66.1 64.8–67.3
1
+1 SD
86.7 85.6–87.9 68.1 66.7–69.4
2 84.3 83.2–85.3 67.7 66.4–69.0
3 81.8 80.7–82.9 67.3 66.0–68.6
4 79.4 78.2–80.6 67.0 65.6–68.3
Loneliness
1
−1 SD
86.8 85.7–87.9 72.4 71.1–73.7
2 84.2 83.1–85.2 72.7 71.5–74.0
3 81.6 80.5–82.7 73.1 71.8–74.3
4 79.0 77.8–80.2 73.4 72.1–74.7
1
Mean
86.4 85.3–87.4 65.9 64.6–67.1
2 83.7 82.7–84.7 66.0 64.8–67.2
3 81.0 80.0–82.0 66.2 65.0–67.4
4 78.3 77.3–79.4 66.3 65.1–67.6
1
+1 SD
85.9 84.9–87.0 59.3 58.1–60.0
2 83.2 82.2–84.2 59.3 58.1–60.5
3 80.4 79.4–81.5 59.3 58.1–60.5
4 77.7 76.6–78.8 59.3 58.0–60.6
1Estimated marginal means for the interaction between wave and the predictor for models 3 and 4.
References
1.
Beard, J.R.; Bloom, D.E. Towards a comprehensive public health response to population ageing. Lancet
2014
,
385, 658–661. [CrossRef]
2.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Ageing
2017; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2017.
3. Rowe, J.W.; Kahn, R.L. Successful Aging. Gerontologist 1997,37, 433–440. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 5314 12 of 14
4.
Depp, C.A.; Vahia, I.V.; Jeste, D. Successful Aging: Focus on Cognitive and Emotional Health. Annu. Rev.
Clin. Psychol. 2010,6, 527–550. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5.
Cosco, T.D.; Prina, A.M.; Perales, J.; Stephan, B.C.M.; Brayne, C. Operational definitions of successful aging:
A systematic review. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2013,26, 373–381. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6.
Kok, A.A.L.; Aartsen, M.J.; Deeg, D.J.H.; Huisman, M. Capturing the Diversity of Successful Aging:
An Operational Definition Based on 16-Year Trajectories of Functioning. Gerontologist
2015
,57, 240–251.
[CrossRef]
7.
Kendig, H.; Browning, C.J.; Thomas, S.A.; Wells, Y. Health, Lifestyle, and Gender Influences on Aging Well:
An Australian Longitudinal Analysis to Guide Health Promotion. Front. Public Health
2014
,2, 70. [CrossRef]
8.
Cosco, T.D.; Prina, A.M.; Perales, J.; Stephan, B.C.M.; Brayne, C. Lay perspectives of successful ageing: A
systematic review and meta-ethnography. BMJ Open 2013,3, e002710. [CrossRef]
9.
Foster, L.; Walker, A. Active and successful aging: A European policy perspective. Gerontologist
2015
,55,
83–90. [CrossRef]
10.
Glymour, M.M.; Avendano, M.; Kawachi, I. Socioeconomic Status and Health. In Social Epidemiology;
Berkman, L.F., Kawachi, I., Glymour, M.M., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014;
pp. 17–62.
11.
Marmot, M. Fair Society, Healthy Lives: The Marmot Review—Executive Summary; Marmot Review: London,
UK, 2010.
12.
Huisman, M.; Kunst, A.E.; MacKenbach, J.P. Socioeconomic inequalities in morbidity among the elderly; a
European overview. Soc. Sci. Med. 2003,57, 861–873. [CrossRef]
13.
Huisman, M.; Kunst, A.E.; Bopp, M.; Borgan, J.-K.; Borrell, C.; Costa, G.; Deboosere, P.; Gadeyne, S.;
Glickman, M.; Marinacci, C.; et al. Educational inequalities in cause-specific mortality in middle-aged and
older men and women in eight western European populations. Lancet 2005,365, 493–500. [CrossRef]
14.
Von dem Knesebeck, O.; Vonneilich, N.; Lüdecke, D. Income and functional limitations among the aged
in Europe: A trend analysis in 16 countries. J. Epidemiol. Community Health
2017
,71, 584–591. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
15.
Mackenbach, J.P. Health Inequalities: Europe in Profile. An Independent Expert Report Commissioned by UK
Presidency of the EU; Department of Health: London, UK, 2006.
16.
Kok, A.A.L.; Aartsen, M.J.; Deeg, D.J.H.; Huisman, M. Socioeconomic inequalities in a 16-year longitudinal
measurement of successful ageing. J. Epidemiol. Community Health
2016
,70, 1106–1113. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17.
Britton, A.; Shipley, M.; Singh-Manoux, A.; Marmot, M. Successful aging: The contribution of early-life and
midlife risk factors. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2008,56, 1098–1105. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18.
Peeters, G.; Beard, J.; Deeg, D.J.H.; Tooth, L.; Brown, W.J.; Dobson, A.J. Longitudinal associations between
lifestyle, socio-economic position and physical functioning in women at different life stages. Eur. J. Ageing
2018,16, 167–179. [CrossRef]
19.
Depp, C.A.; Jeste, D.V. Definitions and Predictors of Successful Aging: A Comprehensive Review of Larger
Quantitative Studies. Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 2006,14, 6–20. [CrossRef]
20.
O’rand, A. Age and Inequality: Diverse Pathways Through Later Life; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 1999.
21.
Schöllgen, I.; Huxhold, O.; Tesch-Römer, C. Socioeconomic status and health in the second half of life:
Findings from the German Ageing Survey. Eur. J. Ageing 2010,7, 17–28. [CrossRef]
22.
Leopold, L.; Engelhardt, H. Education and physical health trajectories in old age. Evidence from the Survey
of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). Int. J. Public Health 2013,58, 23–31. [CrossRef]
23.
Koster, A.; Bosma, H.; Broese van Groenou, M.I.; Kempen, G.I.J.M.; Penninx, B.W.J.H.; van Eijk, J.T.M.;
Deeg, D.J.H. Explanations of socioeconomic differences in changes in physical function in older adults:
Results from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam. BMC Public Health 2006,6, 244. [CrossRef]
24.
Boehm, J.K.; Chen, Y.; Williams, D.R.; Ryff, C.; Kubzansky, L.D. Unequally Distributed Psychological Assets:
Are There Social Disparities in Optimism, Life Satisfaction, and Positive Affect? PLoS ONE
2015
,10, e0118066.
[CrossRef]
25.
Robb, K.A.; Simon, A.E.; Wardle, J. Socioeconomic Disparities in Optimism and Pessimism. Int. J. Behav.
Med. 2009,16, 331–338. [CrossRef]
26.
Katz, S.; Calasanti, T. Critical Perspectives on Successful Aging: Does It “Appeal More Than It Illuminates”?
Gerontologist 2014,55, 26–33. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 5314 13 of 14
27.
Ong, A.D.; Uchino, B.N.; Wethington, E. Loneliness and health in older adults: A mini-review and synthesis.
Gerontology 2016,62, 443–449. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28.
Shankar, A.; McMunn, A.; Demakakos, P.; Hamer, M.; Steptoe, A. Social isolation and loneliness: Prospective
associations with functional status in older adults. Health Psychol 2017,36, 179–187. [CrossRef]
29.
Perissinotto, C.M.; Stijacic Cenzer, I.; Covinsky, K.E. Loneliness in older persons: A predictor of functional
decline and death. Arch. Intern. Med. 2012,172, 1078–1083. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30.
Tan, S.S.; Fierloos, I.N.; Zhang, X.; Koppelaar, E.; Alhambra-Borras, T.; Rentoumis, T.; Williams, G.;
Rukavina, T.; Van Staveren, R.; Ferrer, J.G.; et al. The Association between Loneliness and Health Related
Quality of Life (HR-QoL) among Community-Dwelling Older Citizens. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
2020,17, 600. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31.
De Jong Gierveld, J.; Van Tilburg, T. The De Jong Gierveld short scales for emotional and social loneliness:
Tested on data from 7 countries in the UN generations and gender surveys. Eur. J. Ageing
2010
,7, 121–130.
[CrossRef]
32.
De Jong-Gierveld, J.; Kamphuis, F. The development of a Rasch-type loneliness scale. Appl. Psychol. Meas.
1985,9, 289–299. [CrossRef]
33.
Van Bavel, J.J.; Baicker, K.; Boggio, P.S.; Capraro, V.; Cichocka, A.; Cikara, M.; Crockett, M.J.; Crum, A.J.;
Douglas, K.M.; Druckman, J.N.; et al. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic
response. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2020,4, 460–471. [CrossRef]
34.
Douglas, H.; Georgiou, A.; Westbrook, J. Social participation as an indicator of successful aging: An overview
of concepts and their associations with health. Aust. Health Rev. 2017,41, 455–462. [CrossRef]
35.
Strawbridge, W.J.; Cohen, R.D.; Shema, S.J.; Kaplan, G.A. Successful Aging: Predictors and Associated
Activities. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1996,144, 135–141. [CrossRef]
36.
Engstler, H.; Hameister, N.; Schwichtenberg-Hilmert, B. German Ageing Survey (DEAS): User Manual SUF
DEAS2017, Version 1.1. Available online: http://doi.org/10.5156/DEAS.2017.M.002 (accessed on 14 July 2020).
37.
Vogel, C.; Wettstein, M.; Tesch-Römer, C. Frauen und Männer in Der Zweiten Lebenshälfte: Älterwerden im
Sozialen Wandel; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2019.
38.
Klaus, D.; Engstler, H. Daten und Methoden des Deutschen Alterssurveys. In Altern im Wandel: Zwei
Jahrzehnte Deutscher Alterssurvey (DEAS); Mahne, K., Wolff, J.K., Simonson, J., Tesch-Römer, C., Eds.; Springer:
Wiesbaden, Germany, 2017; pp. 29–45.
39.
Schiel, S.; Marcos, J.R.; Dickmann, C.; Aust, F.; Middendorf, L. Methodenbericht Deutscher Alterssurvey (DEAS):
Durchführung Der 6. Erhebungswelle 2017; Deutsches Zentrum für Altersfragen (DZA): Berlin, Germany, 2019.
40.
World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for
medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013,310, 2191. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41.
Ware, J.E.; Sherbourne, C.D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework
and item selection. Med. Care 1992,30, 473–483. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42.
Brandtstädter, J.; Wentura, D. Changes in time perspectives and attitudes toward the future during the
transition to later adulthood: Developmental psychology and differential aspects. Z. Entwickl. Pädagogische
Psychol. 1994,26, 2–21.
43. International Standard Classification of Education. ISCED 1997; UNESCO: Paris, France, 1997.
44.
Hagenaars, A. Poverty Statistics in the Late 1980s. Research Based on Micro-Data; Office for Official Publications
of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 1994.
45.
De Jong Gierveld, J.; van Tilburg, T. A 6-item scale for overall, emotional, and social loneliness: Confirmatory
tests on survey data. Res. Aging 2006,28, 582–598. [CrossRef]
46.
Carle, A.C. Fitting multilevel models in complex survey data with design weights: Recommendations. BMC
Med. Res. Methodol. 2009,9, 49. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47.
James, G.; Witten, D.; Hastie, T.; Tibshirani, R. An Introduction to Statistical Learning: With Applications in R;
Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
48.
Gelman, A. Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Stat. Med.
2008
,27, 2865–2873.
[CrossRef]
49.
Bell, A.; Jones, K. Explaining Fixed Effects: Random Effects Modeling of Time-Series Cross-Sectional and
Panel Data. Political Sci. Res. Methods 2014,3, 133–153. [CrossRef]
50. Mundlak, Y. On the Pooling of Time Series and Cross Section Data. Econometrica 1978,46, 69. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 5314 14 of 14
51.
Bell, A.; Fairbrother, M.; Jones, K. Fixed and random effects models: Making an informed choice. Qual.
Quant. 2018,53, 1051–1074. [CrossRef]
52.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing:
Vienna, Austria, 2020.
53.
Bates, D.; Mächler, M.; Bolker, B.; Walker, S. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. J. Stat. Softw.
2015,67, 1–48. [CrossRef]
54.
Lüdecke, D. Ggeffects: Tidy Data Frames of Marginal Effects from Regression Models. JOSS
2018
,3, 772.
[CrossRef]
55.
Lüdecke, D.; Makowski, D.; Waggoner, P.; Patil, I. Performance: Assessment of Regression Models
Performance. Available online: https://easystats.github.io/performance/(accessed on 14 July 2020).
56.
Ben-Zur, H. Loneliness, Optimism, and Well-Being Among Married, Divorced, and Widowed Individuals.
J. Psychol. 2012,146, 23–36. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57.
Snijders, T.A.B.; Bosker, R.J. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling, 2nd
ed.; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2012.
58.
Marmot, M.; Allen, J.; Bell, R.; Bloomer, E.; Goldblatt, P. Consortium for the European Review of Social
Determinants of Health and the Health Divide. WHO European review of social determinants of health and
the health divide. Lancet 2012,380, 1011–1029. [CrossRef]
59.
Morley, J.E.; Flaherty, J.H. It’s never too late: Health promotion and illness prevention in older persons.
J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2002,57, 338–342. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60. Dean, K.; Holstein, B.E. Health Promotion Among the Elderly. WHO Reg. Publ. Eur. Ser. 1991,37, 341.
61.
Duplaga, M.; Grysztar, M.; Rodzinka, M.; Kopec, A. Scoping review of health promotion and disease
prevention interventions addressed to elderly people. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2016,16, 278. [CrossRef]
62.
Harmell, A.L.; Jeste, D.; Depp, C. Strategies for Successful Aging: A Research Update. Curr. Psychiatry Rep.
2014,16, 476. [CrossRef]
63. Hart, J.T. The inverse care law. Lancet 1971,1, 405–412. [CrossRef]
64.
Masi, C.M.; Chen, H.-Y.; Hawkley, L.C.; Cacioppo, J.T. A Meta-Analysis of Interventions to Reduce Loneliness.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2010,15, 219–266. [CrossRef]
65.
Dom
è
nech-Abella, J.; Lara, E.; Rubio-Valera, M.; Olaya, B.; Moneta, M.V.; Rico-Uribe, L.A.; Ayuso-Mateos, J.L.;
Mund
ó
, J.; Haro, J.M. Loneliness and depression in the elderly: The role of social network. Soc. Psychiatry
Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2017,52, 381–390. [CrossRef]
66.
WHO. World Report on Ageing and Health. 2015. Available online: https://www.who.int/ageing/events/
world-report-2015-launch/en/(accessed on 14 July 2020).
©
2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
