Table 2

Associations between respondent and contact characteristics and provision of specific types of support

EmotionalInformationalFinancialPhysicalSocialisation
All respondents
 Older generation relative1.001.001.001.001.00
 Same-generation relative1.17 (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 partner1.42 (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-relative0.97 (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 18–241.71 (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 contact0.31 (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 respondent1.31 (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 relative1.001.001.001.001.00
 Same-generation relative1.86 (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 partner4.26 (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-relative0.86 (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 18–241.32 (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 contact0.06 (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 relative1.001.001.001.001.00
 Same-generation relative0.95 (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 partner1.52 (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-relative1.65 (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 18–242.24 (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 contact0.75 (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.