Older and feeling unsafe? Differences in underlying vulnerability, anxiety and life satisfaction among older adults

Figures & data

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of participants and descriptive statistics.

Variable	N (%) or M (SD)	Range
Age	77.58 (7.22)	64–106
Gender
Male	245 (39.5%)
Female	376 (60.5%)
Education
High school degree or lower	412 (68.4%)
Above high school	190 (31.6%)
Family status
With partner	291 (47.5%)
Without partner	321 (52.5%)
Able to get a hold of 15,000 SEK in one week?
Yes	509 (85%)
No	90 (15%)
Previous victimization
Yes	30 (4.9%)
No	577 (95.1%)
Frailty	0.29 (0.18)	0–1
Fear of falling	4.27 (3.02)	0–10
Social support: Significant other	5.58 (1.51)	1–7
Social support: Family	5.49 (1.47)	1–7
Social support: Friends	5.17 (1.40)	1–7
Neighborhood problems	1.80 (0.78)	1–4
Trust in others in the neighborhood	3.45 (0.70)	1–4
Perceived unsafety in the neighborhood	1.66 (0.96)	1–5
Perceived unsafety at home	1.35 (0.69)	1–5
Fear of crime	1.64 (0.61)	1–5
Anxiety	0.49 (0.50)	0–3
Life satisfaction	4.66 (1.29)	1–7

Figure 1. Means of indicator variables corresponding to each of the three profiles (z-scores).

Table 2. Summary of model fit statistics for models with one to four classes.

Number of profiles	Log likelihood	AIC	SABIC	LRM p	Entropy	Free parameters	% significant covariances	Smallest class
1.	−5113.03	10278.06	10310.73	–	1.00	26	57%	621 (100%)
2.	–5032.73	10133.46	10176.18	0.0003	0.88	34	40%	61 (9.8%)
3.	–4966.04	10012.08	10062.34	0.0015	0.84	40	22%	45 (7.2%)
4.	–4480.61	9141.22	9254.30	0.5314	0.84	90	65%	45 (7.2%)

Bold values denotes number of profiles selected in the study and the model fit characteristics for three profiles.

Table 3. Multinomial logistic regression predicting profile membership.

Variable	B	Odds ratio	95% CI	p
Profile 1 versus Profile 3
Age	−0.01	0.99	0.95–1.04	0.771
Gender (ref = male)	–1.43	0.24	0.13–0.46	<0.001
Family status (ref = without partner)	–1.53	0.22	0.11–0.44	<0.001
Education (ref = higher)	0.13	1.14	0.59–2.20	0.752
Financial situation (ref = higher)	0.50	1.65	0.80–3.41	0.254
Victimization (ref = no)	0.24	1.27	0.39–4.08	0.739
Profile 2 versus Profile 3
Age	–0.09	0.91	0.89–0.94	<0.001
Gender (ref = male)	0.13	1.14	0.76–1.70	0.599
Family status (ref = without partner)	–0.37	0.69	0.46–1.03	0.131
Education (ref = higher)	0.22	1.25	0.83–1.88	0.368
Financial situation (ref = higher)	0.42	1.53	0.92–2.54	0.171
Victimization (ref = no)	0.97	2.64	1.36–5.11	0.016
Profile 1 versus Profile 2
Age	0.08	1.09	1.04–1.14	0.005
Gender (ref = male)	–1.56	0.21	0.10–0.43	<0.001
Family status (ref = without partner)	–1.17	0.31	0.15–0.68	0.013
Education (ref = higher)	–0.10	0.91	0.44–1.88	0.828
Financial situation (ref = higher)	0.08	1.08	0.48–2.43	0.874
Victimization (ref = no)	–0.73	0.48	0.13–1.72	0.344

CI = confidence interval.

Results significant at Bonferroni-corrected p < 0.0028 are marked with bold.

Table 4. Results of the Kruskall-Wallis H tests (post-hoc pairwise comparisons of differences between the profiles).

Profiles	Perceived unsafety in the neighborhood	Perceived unsafety at home	Fear of crime	Anxiety	Life satisfaction
1 vs 2	–82.047	–39.923	–119.263**	–4.991	–105.103**
1 vs 3	61.937	49.820	–9.384	75.002	–173.138**
2 vs 3	143.984**	89.743**	109.879**	79.993**	–68.035**

** Results significant at Bonferroni-corrected p < 0.003.

Data availability statement

The data presented in this article are not readily available because of participant confidentiality. Requests to access the data should be directed to [email protected].