American Older Adults in COVID-19 Times: Vulnerability Types, Aging Attitudes, and Emotional Responses

  1. Mingqi Fu
  2. Jing Guo
  3. Xi Chen
  4. Boxun Han
  5. Farooq Ahmed
  6. Muhammad Shahid
  7. Qilin Zhang

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The Coronavirus Disease (COVID) pandemic has aroused challenges to emotional well-being of the individuals. With 1,582 respondents from the Health and Retirement Survey (HRS), this study investigates the heterogeneity in older adults' vulnerability and examines the relationship between vulnerability types, aging attitudes, and emotional responses. International Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Short-form (I-PANAS-SF) and Attitudes toward own aging (ATOT) were used to assess the emotional experiences and aging attitudes, and 14 kinds of pandemic-related deprivations evaluated vulnerability of individuals. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to explore the vulnerability types, and weighted linear regressions examined the relationship between vulnerability, aging attitudes, and emotional responses. The results showed that the proportion for individuals with mild vulnerability (MV), healthcare use vulnerability (HV), and dual vulnerability in healthcare use and financial sustainment (DVs) was 67, 22, and 11%, respectively. Older adults aged below 65, Hispanics and non-Hispanic Blacks, and those not eligible for Medicaid were more likely to have HV or DVs. The relationship between vulnerability and positive emotions (PAs) was non-significant, yet individuals with HV (beta = 0.10, standard error [SE] = 0.16) or DVs (beta = 0.09, SE = 0.28) were likely to have more negative emotions (NAs) than their mildly vulnerable counterparts. Furthermore, aging attitudes moderated the relationship between vulnerability and emotions. The salutary effect of positive aging attitudes on emotional well-being was more significant among people with DVs than those with MV (beta = 0.20, SE = 0.04 for positive responses; beta = −0.15, SE = 0.04 for negative responses). Thus, we urge more attention for vulnerable older adults in a pandemic context. Meanwhile, encouraging positive aging attitudes might be helpful for older adults to have better emotional well-being, especially for those with DVs.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3389/fpubh.2021.778084
  2. Version published to 10.21203/rs.3.rs-492863/v1 on Research Square
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.29.21256178: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Collection and production of HRS data comply with the requirements of the University of Michigan’s Institutional Review Board (IRB).
    Consent: All respondents gave verbal consent to this survey.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationThe COVID-19 module is being administrated 50% random subsample of households initially assigned to enhance face-to-face interviewing.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Strengths and limitations: This study reveals the latent classes of vulnerability for older adults in COVID-19 times and examines the relationships between vulnerability type, positive aging attitudes, and emotional responses. The findings of this study shed light on the detection of most vulnerable older adults and reinforce emotional well-being promotion strategies in a pandemic context. However, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, older adults that had been infected with the disease were underrepresented in this study. This study reported that 1.4% of respondents were diagnosed with the disease, whereas the prevalence may be much higher in the older adult population. Second, based on cross-sectional data, this study cannot infer causality, although it seems plausible in the temporal sequence vulnerability and aging attitudes first, and emotional responses being the outcomes. Third, there might be some confounding that was not controlled. For instance, we explained the moderation effect of positive aging attitudes with confrontation to ageism information. However, in the current study, whether and how the older adults were exposed to the ageism information was unknown. Despite these limitations, this study is one of the first studies to examine older adults’ emotional well-being with a vulnerability perspective. The findings of this study implicate emotional well-being promotion strategies in pandemic contexts. We propose that older adults’ emotional well-bei...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2021.04.29.21256178v1 on medRxiv