Does consistency between actual living arrangements and expectations (ALIVE) matter? A population-based longitudinal study of older adults

Evidence indicates that living arrangements significantly influence the well-being and health of older adults. However, the psychological needs of this population have increasingly emerged as important public health concerns, with preferences regarding living arrangements serving as a key determinant. Ignoring this issue can lead to incomplete or inaccurate assessments of how various living arrangements affect their health. To better understand this impact, this study investigates the relationship between living arrangements and survival outcomes among older adults, while considering the alignment between Actual Living Arrangements and Expectations (ALivE). Data for this study were sourced from the China Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey (CLHLS) covering the period from 2005 to 2018. Living arrangements were assessed based on participants’ self-reported expect living arrangement (indicating preference) and current situations in the questionnaire, categorized into “living alone (or with a spouse only)”, “co-residence with children”, or “living in an institution”. Survival status and date of death were determined through interviews with close family members during each survey round. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used for longitudinal analysis, and strategies for heterogeneity analysis were employed to identify vulnerable subgroups. The study included 4,272 older adults, of whom 2,188 (51.22%) died during the follow-up period (2008 to 2018). The median survival time was 5 years. Compared to individuals with consistent living arrangements, those with discrepancies between actual and preferred arrangements had a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.36 (95% CI: 1.20–1.53), indicating a 36% increased risk of death. Sensitivity to these inconsistencies was greater among males, individuals with fixed occupations before age 60, those with average or difficult economic conditions, individuals with unfavorable dietary patterns, and those who are not currently exercising. This study highlights the significance of aligning older adults’ living arrangements with their preferences. The association with health is more closely related to whether living arrangements match personal desires rather than the specific type of arrangement.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Public Health
Published
2025-12-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-26027-3
Primary Topic
Intergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Does consistency between actual living arrangements and expectations (ALIVE) matter? A population-based longitudinal study of older adults

Liyong Lu, Wenqiang Zhang, Sicheng Li, Tianjiao Lan et al.
BMC Public Health
Intergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
article

Does consistency between actual living arrangements and expectations (ALIVE) matter? A population-based longitudinal study of older adults

Liyong Lu, Wenqiang Zhang, Sicheng Li, Tianjiao Lan, TianFu Gao, Ting Chen
article en

Abstract

Evidence indicates that living arrangements significantly influence the well-being and health of older adults. However, the psychological needs of this population have increasingly emerged as important public health concerns, with preferences regarding living arrangements serving as a key determinant. Ignoring this issue can lead to incomplete or inaccurate assessments of how various living arrangements affect their health. To better understand this impact, this study investigates the relationship between living arrangements and survival outcomes among older adults, while considering the alignment between Actual Living Arrangements and Expectations (ALivE). Data for this study were sourced from the China Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey (CLHLS) covering the period from 2005 to 2018. Living arrangements were assessed based on participants’ self-reported expect living arrangement (indicating preference) and current situations in the questionnaire, categorized into “living alone (or with a spouse only)”, “co-residence with children”, or “living in an institution”. Survival status and date of death were determined through interviews with close family members during each survey round. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used for longitudinal analysis, and strategies for heterogeneity analysis were employed to identify vulnerable subgroups. The study included 4,272 older adults, of whom 2,188 (51.22%) died during the follow-up period (2008 to 2018). The median survival time was 5 years. Compared to individuals with consistent living arrangements, those with discrepancies between actual and preferred arrangements had a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.36 (95% CI: 1.20–1.53), indicating a 36% increased risk of death. Sensitivity to these inconsistencies was greater among males, individuals with fixed occupations before age 60, those with average or difficult economic conditions, individuals with unfavorable dietary patterns, and those who are not currently exercising. This study highlights the significance of aligning older adults’ living arrangements with their preferences. The association with health is more closely related to whether living arrangements match personal desires rather than the specific type of arrangement.

BMC Public HealthVol. 26(1)
Nanchang University (CN), Shandong University (CN), Xiamen University (CN), Sichuan University (CN), Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital (CN), First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University (CN), West China Hospital of Sichuan University (CN), Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University (CN), Shandong Provincial Hospital (CN), Zhongshan Hospital of Xiamen University (CN), Shandong First Medical University (CN)
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 24%
Intergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.