The Association between Social Support and Musculoskeletal Health in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Findings from the Hertfordshire Cohort Study
2025

Social Support and Musculoskeletal Health in Older Adults

Sample size: 1842 publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Bevilacqua Gregorio, D’Angelo Stefania, Laskou Faidra, Zaballa Elena, Harvey Nicholas C., Dennison Elaine M.

Primary Institution: MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK

Hypothesis

How do different aspects of social support relate to musculoskeletal health in community-dwelling older adults?

Conclusion

Different types of social support are linked to various measures of musculoskeletal health in older adults, with low practical support associated with better physical capability and negative support linked to poorer outcomes.

Supporting Evidence

  • Low emotional support correlated with weaker grip strength and poorer physical capability tests.
  • Low practical support was linked to shorter timed up-and-go and walking speed times.
  • Negative support was associated with lower grip strength and slower walking speeds.

Takeaway

Having friends and family to help is important for older people, but sometimes too much help can make them feel weaker. If they feel like the help they get isn't good enough, it can make them feel worse.

Methodology

Participants reported their social support levels and underwent physical assessments including grip strength and walking speed tests.

Potential Biases

Self-reported data may introduce recall bias, and social class assessment for married women may not accurately reflect their current status.

Limitations

The study's cross-sectional design limits causal inferences, and the sample may not be representative of the wider UK population.

Participant Demographics

Community-dwelling older adults in the UK, predominantly White, with a mean age of 65.7 years.

Statistical Information

Confidence Interval

β −0.171, 95%CI −0.319, −0.024; β −0.145, 95%CI −0.223, −0.067

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1007/s00223-024-01307-z

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication