Table 3

Interaction of respondent gender and respondent–contact relationship and provision of specific types of support

	Emotional	Informational	Financial	Physical	Social
Main effect
Older generation relative	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Same-generation relative	1.73 (0.83 to 3.62)	0.40 (0.19 to 0.83)	0.19 (0.09 to 0.41)	0.85 (0.39 to 1.87)	1.11 (0.39 to 3.11)
Romantic partner	0.92 (0.29 to 2.91)	0.51 (0.18 to 1.47)	0.32 (0.11 to 0.94)	0.91 (0.30 to 2.77)	39.2 (9.49 to 162)
Non-romantic non-relative	0.93 (0.42 to 2.04)	0.10 (0.04 to 0.30)	0.08 (0.03 to 0.22)	0.22 (0.07 to 0.69)	9.91 (3.81 to 25.8)
Male vs female respondent
Older generation relative	0.88 (0.38 to 2.04)	0.98 (0.45 to 2.12)	1.02 (0.44 to 2.36)	0.91 (0.40 to 2.10)	0.35 (0.07 to 1.83)
Same-generation relative	0.39 (0.12 to 1.25)	1.27 (0.42 to 3.80)	0.81 (0.24 to 2.73)	1.83 (0.57 to 5.84)	2.18 (0.29 to 16.3)
Romantic partner	2.43 (0.58 to 10.2)	0.99 (0.25 to 3.82)	0.20 (0.04 to 0.86)		2.75 (0.36 to 21.3)
Non-romantic non-relative	1.04 (0.32 to 3.36)	2.66 (0.68 to 10.4)	0.53 (0.11 to 2.56)	3.21 (0.74 14.0)	2.94 (0.47–18.5)
Respondent aged 25–34 vs 18–24	1.77 (1.13 to 2.77)	1.09 (0.69 to 1.71)	0.94 (0.56 to 1.55)	0.68 (0.41 to 1.14)	1.34 (0.76 to 2.35)
Other vs same-gender contact	0.30 (0.16 to 0.58)	0.87 (0.48 to 1.60)	2.28 (1.20 to 4.33)	1.18 (0.63 to 2.22)	0.43 (0.17 to 1.10)

Separate models were run for each type of support shown. Values are from two-level hierarchical logistic regressions and show main effects and gender interaction effects for each type of relative. Regressions contained 387 contacts nested within 118 respondents, except for physical support where no non-romantic non-relative female contacts provided such support to males; 26 such contacts were excluded so that the model converged. All models exclude five 'younger generation relative' and two 'unspecified relative' contacts, and one respondent with no contacts.