Suchergebnisse

Previous research finds that marriage is a privileged family form with health benefits. These health advantages may have shifted during the pandemic, as more time was spent at home and resources strained. This study compares differences in three health outcomes across relationship statuses between April and December 2020 using a nationally-representative US survey, the Household Pulse Survey (N = 1,422,733). As the pandemic progressed, larger differences emerged when comparing married and never married respondents' probabilities of fair or poor health, depression, and anxiety as never married people had the steepest decline in health, even adjusting for pandemic-related stressors (e.g., food insufficiency). Yet, widowed and divorced/separated respondents' greater probabilities of these three health outcomes compared to married respondents' narrowed over this same period. During the pandemic, relationship status and self-rated health patterns were similar for men and women, but for mental health there was evidence that the growing advantage of marriage relative to never being married was more pronounced for men, whereas the shrinking advantage of marriage relative to being previously married was more pronounced for women. This study identifies the unique health needs for never married adults during the pandemic, demonstrating that social conditions around the pandemic likely exacerbated health disparities by relationship status.

AbstractObjectiveWe compare maternal and adult child health outcomes across (1) estranged (i.e., no contact, or low contact and low quality), (2) socially positive (i.e., high quality, moderate to high contact), and (3) socially negative (i.e., high contact but low quality) maternal–adult child relationships.BackgroundWe develop intergenerational resource, crisis, and strain theories to test the link between socially positive, socially negative, and estranged maternal–adult child dynamics and the health of both generations.MethodRegression models of National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY79 and NLSY79‐CYA) data compare self‐rated health and CES‐D scores across maternal–adult child relationship types (N = 2609 mothers; 5590 children).ResultsMothers with estranged ties report poorer health relative to those with socially positive ties. Mothers with socially negative ties report statistically similar health relative to mothers with either socially positive or estranged ties. The health of adult children with estrangement exposure is similar to those in socially negative ties, while adult children with socially negative ties have worse health relative to those in socially positive ties. Estranged adult children report worse self‐rated health than those in socially positive ties, but adult children's mental health is not statistically different than those in socially positive ties. Family‐level analyses incorporating siblings suggest that for mothers, an estranged/socially negative tie with any child is associated with worse self‐rated health; for adult children, one's own maternal relationship is more consequential than the sibling context.ConclusionThis study has implications for research and theory on the health cost of socially negative and estranged intergenerational ties.

This article employs the gender‐as‐relational (GAR) approach to enhance the study of the long‐term romantic relationships of sexual and gender minority mid‐ to later‐life adults. The GAR approach states that gender in relationships is shaped by three key factors: own gender, partner gender, and the gendered relational context. This approach emphasizes that the relationship dynamics of men, women, and gender‐nonconforming individuals are highly diverse, reflecting that gender is a social construct formed within interactions and institutions. We explicate how GAR can reorganize the study of sexual and gender diversity in three research areas related to aging and relationships—caregiving, marital health benefits, and intimacy—and discuss theory‐driven methods appropriate for a GAR research agenda. A GAR framework reorients research by complicating taken‐for‐granted assumptions about how gender operates in mid‐ to later‐life romantic relationships and queering understandings of aging and romantic relationships to include experiences outside of heteronormative and cisnormative categories.

AbstractWe theorize that the social conditions surrounding the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic have the potential to increase the importance of families for health and widen existing inequalities. We suggest three primary tenets important for understanding families and health during COVID‐19. First, risks of specific COVID‐19 outcomes and other health problems are unevenly distributed across families. Second, how families impact health during the COVID‐19 pandemic is conditional on public policies, organizational decisions, and concurrent events. Third, many health inequalities driven by racism, sexism, classism, and other oppressive societal forces are amplified during COVID‐19, but the extent to which this is occurring is shaped by families and by the public policies, organizational decisions, and concurrent events that also impact families and health. As health disparities continue to emerge from this pandemic, we call on researchers and policymakers to pay attention to the multiple ways that families matter.

AbstractResearch consistently demonstrates that family relationships are key determinants of health, but most research on health and families focuses on a heterosexual and cisgender context. Sexual and gender identities often are overlooked or erased in family and health research. We present an overview of the current state of research on LGBT families and health, using a life course approach and pointing to the ways that LGBT people's experiences of families occur within a broader social structural context, with implications for their health and the health of their family members. We focus on parenthood, parent–child ties, intimate relationships, and caregiving. We also identify two theoretical obstacles for studies of LGBT families and health as well as important research areas for moving forward, such as the inclusion of non‐binary and queer identities in our studies of family and health. Incorporation of LGBT and other queer families and family forms into our health research interrogates assumptions within family and health research and offers insight into how to move the field forward.