Y about onetenth of nonkin networkVanessa Burholt and Christine DobbsT A
Y about onetenth of nonkin networkVanessa Burholt and Christine DobbsT A B L E . MedChemExpress PS-1145 Defining characteristics of network members in the fourcluster model of network typesCriterion variables Imply network size . . . . . Age Male . . . . . years . . . . . years . . . . . years . . . . . Kin . . . . . Formal services . . . . . Living in very same household . . . . .Network sort Multigenerational Household: Older Integrated Network Multigenerational Household: Younger Family Network Household and Mates Integrated Network Restricted Nonkin Network AllNotes : . Values would be the imply proportion of your network with each characteristic. Analysis of variance: network size (F p .); male (F p .); years (F p .); years (F p .); years (F p .); kin (F p .); formal solutions (F p .); living in household (F p .). Posthoc group comparisons Tukey HSD test: numbers that appear in bold (e.g. .) constitute subsets with PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28742396 the highest values; numbers that seem in italics (e.g. .) constitute subsets with all the lowest values.T A B L E . Demographic characteristics of participants by support network sort: frequencies and crosstabulationsMultigenerational Household: Older Integrated Network N Mean age (years) Aid received (mean no. of tasks) Support provided (mean no. of tasks) Household size (imply no. of people) N Gender: Male Female Marital status: Single Married Widowed Divorcedseparated Household composition: Alone With spouse onlyMultigenerational Household: Younger Household Network . . . .Family members and Mates Integrated Network . . . .Restricted Nonkin Network . . . .All . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . N . . . . . . . .Multigenerational assistance networksN. . . . . . . .N. . . . . . . .NT A B L E . (Cont.)N With other generations Childless: Yes No Community participation: By no means At the very least occasionally Religious participation: In no way No less than occasionally . . . . . . . N . . . . . . . N . . . . . . . N . . . . . . . N . . . . . . .Vanessa Burholt and Christine DobbsNotes : . Analysis of variance: age (F p .); aid received (F p .); support provided (F p .); household size (F p .). Posthoc group comparisons Tukey HSD test: numbers that seem in bold (e.g. .) constitute subsets using the highest values; numbers that seem italic (e.g. .) constitute subsets with the lowest values. . Pearson chisquare: gender ( degrees of freedom (df) , p .); marital status ( df , p .); household composition ( df , p .); childless ( df , p .); community participation ( df , p .); religious participation ( .; df , p .); migrant status ( df , p .).Multigenerational assistance networks members. This network had the smallest proportion of members more than years: general, a vast majority of network members were under years.`Family and Friends Integrated Networks’Over onequarter (. ) of participants were classified as having `Family and Mates Integrated Networks’. The 
household size of people with these networks was fairly tiny (typical 4 persons). Much more than threequarters of people with `Family and Friends Integrated Networks’ have been married, a lot more than onethird lived with a spouse only, even though far more than onehalf lived in a multigenerational household. Provided that households had been fairly small, nearly twothirds of network members lived inside a different household. The key distinction involving this network sort as well as the other folks was the proportion of nonkin members within the network: network.