The impact of stepfamily structure on older parents' frequency of contact with and care receipt from adult biological and stepchildren in the Netherlands.

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Suzan van der Pas, Theo G van Tilburg
{"title":"The impact of stepfamily structure on older parents' frequency of contact with and care receipt from adult biological and stepchildren in the Netherlands.","authors":"Suzan van der Pas, Theo G van Tilburg","doi":"10.1093/geronb/gbaf015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Older people are increasingly entering their later years in stepfamilies. Because adult children play a central role in older parents' support networks, there is concern that the generally weaker intergenerational ties found in stepfamilies may imply an impending deficit in the care available to stepparents. It is currently unclear whether there are differences across stepfamily types including stepfamilies with only biological children. The aim of the study is to examine whether there are differences in contact frequency with and care receipt from adult biological and stepchildren in biological and different types of stepfamilies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data are from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (1992-2022; ten observations); respondents' ages varied between 54 and 101. An average of 3.7 observations are available from 2,761 parents in biological families and 647 parents in stepfamilies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Parents in biological families and in stepfamilies with joint children had more contact than in other stepfamily types. There was less contact in stepfamilies with biological and stepchildren formed in midlife and in families with only stepchildren. There were small differences in care receipt; the lowest likelihood was in composite families.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our study challenges the idea that the relationships of the adult child to older parents in all stepfamilies are weaker than in biological families and point to the importance of considering that only some stepfamilies are vulnerable in terms of contact frequency. We query whether stepfamilies are resilient, for example, to greater pressures from a sharp increase in care needs for one or both parents.</p>","PeriodicalId":56111,"journal":{"name":"Journals of Gerontology Series B-Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journals of Gerontology Series B-Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaf015","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Older people are increasingly entering their later years in stepfamilies. Because adult children play a central role in older parents' support networks, there is concern that the generally weaker intergenerational ties found in stepfamilies may imply an impending deficit in the care available to stepparents. It is currently unclear whether there are differences across stepfamily types including stepfamilies with only biological children. The aim of the study is to examine whether there are differences in contact frequency with and care receipt from adult biological and stepchildren in biological and different types of stepfamilies.

Methods: Data are from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (1992-2022; ten observations); respondents' ages varied between 54 and 101. An average of 3.7 observations are available from 2,761 parents in biological families and 647 parents in stepfamilies.

Results: Parents in biological families and in stepfamilies with joint children had more contact than in other stepfamily types. There was less contact in stepfamilies with biological and stepchildren formed in midlife and in families with only stepchildren. There were small differences in care receipt; the lowest likelihood was in composite families.

Discussion: Our study challenges the idea that the relationships of the adult child to older parents in all stepfamilies are weaker than in biological families and point to the importance of considering that only some stepfamilies are vulnerable in terms of contact frequency. We query whether stepfamilies are resilient, for example, to greater pressures from a sharp increase in care needs for one or both parents.

目的:越来越多的老年人进入晚年后加入了继父继母的家庭。由于成年子女在老年父母的支持网络中扮演着核心角色,人们担心继家庭中的代际联系普遍较弱,这可能意味着继父母即将无法获得足够的照顾。目前还不清楚不同类型的继家庭(包括只有亲生子女的继家庭)之间是否存在差异。本研究旨在探讨在亲生和不同类型的继家庭中,成年亲生子女和继子女在接触频率和接受照顾方面是否存在差异:数据来自阿姆斯特丹老龄化纵向研究(1992-2022 年;10 次观察);受访者年龄在 54 岁至 101 岁之间。从 2,761 名亲生父母和 647 名继父继母那里平均获得了 3.7 个观测数据:与其他类型的继家庭相比,亲生家庭和有共同子女的继家庭中的父母有更多的接触。在有亲生子女和中年继子女的继家庭以及只有继子女的家庭中,接触较少。在接受照顾方面差异较小;复合型家庭接受照顾的可能性最低:我们的研究对所有继子女家庭中成年子女与年长父母的关系都弱于亲生父母家庭的观点提出了质疑,并指出考虑到只有部分继子女家庭在接触频率方面处于弱势的重要性。我们对继父继母家庭是否具有承受力提出了质疑,例如,继父继母是否能够承受父母一方或双方的护理需求急剧增加所带来的更大压力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.10%
发文量
178
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences publishes articles on development in adulthood and old age that advance the psychological science of aging processes and outcomes. Articles have clear implications for theoretical or methodological innovation in the psychology of aging or contribute significantly to the empirical understanding of psychological processes and aging. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to, attitudes, clinical applications, cognition, education, emotion, health, human factors, interpersonal relations, neuropsychology, perception, personality, physiological psychology, social psychology, and sensation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信