Associations between respondent and contact characteristics and provision of specific types of support
| Emotional | Informational | Financial | Physical | Socialisation | |
| All respondents | |||||
| Older generation relative | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Same-generation relative | 1.17 (0.67 to 2.06) | 0.44 (0.25 to 0.77) | 0.17 (0.09 to 0.30) | 1.11 (0.62 to 1.99) | 1.35 (0.56 to 3.24) |
| Romantic partner | 1.42 (0.63 to 3.21) | 0.54 (0.25 to 1.13) | 0.15 (0.07 to 0.32) | 0.41 (0.16 to 1.02) | 60.6 (19.4 to 188) |
| Non-romantic non-relative | 0.97 (0.54 to 1.74) | 0.18 (0.09 to 0.35) | 0.06 (0.03 to 0.13) | 0.44 (0.22 to 0.88) | 14.0 (6.36 to 30.9) |
| Respondent aged 25–34 vs 18–24 | 1.71 (1.10 to 2.66) | 1.08 (0.69 to 1.70) | 0.96 (0.58 to1.59) | 0.71 (0.43 to 1.18) | 1.33 (0.76 to 2.34) |
| Other vs same-gender contact | 0.31 (0.17 to 0.58) | 0.80 (0.45 to 1.43) | 2.63 (1.41 to 4.89) | 1.12 (0.61 to 2.04) | 0.37 (0.15 to 0.92) |
| Female vs male respondent | 1.31 (0.85 to 2.03) | 0.79 (0.50 to 1.25) | 1.57 (0.94 to 2.62) | 0.90 (0.55 to 1.47) | 1.20 (0.70 to 2.07) |
| Female respondent | |||||
| Older generation relative | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Same-generation relative | 1.86 (0.86 to 4.04) | 0.37 (0.17 to0.79) | 0.19 (0.09 to 0.42) | 0.80 (0.36 to 1.80) | 1.09 (0.39 to 3.08) |
| Romantic partner | 4.26 (0.75 to 24.4) | 2.48 (0.56 to 11.0) | 0.39 (0.11 to 1.34) | 0.32 (0.09 to 1.15) | 74.9 (11.4 to 492) |
| Non-romantic non-relative | 0.86 (0.38 to 1.93) | 0.08 (0.03 to 0.25) | 0.08 (0.03 to 0.22) | 0.23 (0.07 to 0.76) | 10.3 (3.88 to 27.3) |
| Respondent aged 25–34 vs 18–24 | 1.32 (0.70 to 2.47) | 0.86 (0.44 to 1.67) | 0.68 (0.35 to 1.34) | 1.31 (0.64 to 2.70) | 1.45 (0.69 to 3.06) |
| Other vs same-gender contact | 0.06 (0.01 to 0.26) | 0.14 (0.04 to 0.50) | 2.03 (0.78 to 5.28) | 3.50 (1.38 to 8.88) | 0.21 (0.04 to 1.01) |
| Male respondent | |||||
| Older generation relative | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Same-generation relative | 0.95 (0.37 to 2.42) | 0.79 (0.33 to 1.91) | 0.14 (0.05 to 0.36) | 1.27 (0.50 to 3.27) | 3.20 (0.54 to 19.1) |
| Romantic partner | 1.52 (0.54 to 4.25) | 0.37 (0.14 to 0.99) | 0.06 (0.02 to 0.19) | 84.9 (15.1 to 476) | |
| Non-romantic non-relative | 1.65 (0.65 to 4.23) | 0.50 (0.20 to 1.28) | 0.04 (0.01 to 0.15) | 0.43 (0.16 to 1.16) | 38.8 (7.27 to 2070) |
| Respondent aged 25–34 vs 18–24 | 2.24 (1.16 to 4.30) | 1.13 (0.59 to 2.18) | 1.45 (0.65 to 3.26) | 0.37 (0.16 to 0.84) | 1.17 (0.49 to 2.78) |
| Other vs same-gender contact | 0.75 (0.32 to 1.76) | 2.43 (1.10 to 5.36) | 2.34 (0.97 to 5.65) | 0.56 (0.23 to 1.33) | 0.80 (0.22 to 2.90) |
Separate models were run for each type of support and respondent gender shown (15 models are presented here). Values are from two-level hierarchical logistic regressions. Regressions for all respondents contained 387 contacts nested within 118 respondents. Regressions for female respondents contained 199 contacts nested within 65 respondents. Regressions for male respondents contained 188 contacts nested within 53 respondents—except for physical support where no romantic partner contacts provided such support; all such social 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. Note: the intraclass correlation coefficient for all models was approximately zero, suggesting negligible variance at the respondent level; these models are therefore almost identical to single-level models ignoring the nesting of contacts within respondents.