Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Sep 16.
Published before final editing as: J Appl Gerontol. 2025 Aug 26:7334648251369686. doi: 10.1177/07334648251369686

Association between Senior Center Attendance and Older Adults’ Health

Hui Xie 1,*, Cinthia Camacho 2, Brenda Jauregui 3, Bing Han 4, Deborah Cohen 5
PMCID: PMC12435386  NIHMSID: NIHMS2102257  PMID: 40859670

Abstract

Senior centers have the potential to promote healthy aging but have not been studied sufficiently. The purpose of this study was to examine the associations between senior center attendance and older adults’ health outcomes (loneliness, mental health, and physical health), using survey data collected from older adults at 23 senior centers in the Greater Los Angeles Area. Results of linear mixed effects models showed that longer and more frequent senior center attendance was associated with lower levels of loneliness and better mental health, with variations between genders and age groups (age < 75 vs. age ≥ 75). Additionally, senior center attendance length and frequency had a positive relationship with physical health for older adults aged 75+, but did not have a significant relationship with physical health for older adults younger than 75. This study highlights the importance of senior center engagement to older adults’ health.

Keywords: Senior center, loneliness, mental health, physical health

Introduction

The American population is aging at an accelerated pace as the baby boomer generation enters late adulthood. By the end of 2030, individuals aged 65+ will account for 20.6% of the U.S. population, up from 12.4% in 2000 (Colby & Ortman, 2014). Under this background, healthy aging has become an increasingly important public health topic in the United States. However, recent statistics show serious concerns over the health of American older adults. For example, the obesity prevalence rate among older adults has been increasing, with 42.8% of Americans aged 60 and older being obese in 2017–18 (Hales et al., 2020). The obesity rate for individuals aged 40 to 59 is also standing high at 44.8% (Hales et al., 2020). The high obesity prevalence is linked to the high prevalence of diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and various chronic diseases among older adults (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000; Mozaffarian et al., 2016). Additionally, social isolation has become a major issue among older Americans, with 43% of Americans aged 60 and older reporting feeling of loneliness (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2020), which may be partly related to the marital instability of the baby boomer generation (Gurrentz & Mayol-Garcia, 2021). Social isolation and loneliness not only negatively affect older adults’ mental health, but also significantly increase their risk of dementia (50%), stroke (32%), and heart diseases (29%) (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2020).

Senior Centers and Older Adults’ Health

Senior centers represent a potentially important context for promoting health and wellbeing for American older adults (MaloneBeach, & Langeland, 2011; Pardasani & Thompson, 2012). Funded by the Older American Act, senior center is a place for many older adults to socialize and participate in health-enhancing programs and activities, such as meal/nutrition programs, fitness and wellness classes, social and recreational activities, enrichment and learning programs, health-related assistance and services, and volunteering and civic engagement opportunities (National Council On Aging, 2024).

Theoretical support for senior centers’ health benefits can be found in Activity Theory (Havighurst, 1961), which posits that a continuing level of activity engagement is key to healthy aging. The theory argues that high levels of activity engagement promote social roles and self identities, which are beneficial to older adults’ health and wellbeing. Role loss, on the other hand, could result in decreased social interaction, social support, social affirmation, and self-esteem and increased social isolation and depression. Therefore, when role loss occurs due to events like retirement or decease of spouse, it is crucial for older adults to replace the lost roles and activities with alternatives to maintain the equilibrium. As described above, senior centers offer various programs and activities that may promote social interaction, social roles, and self-identities. Furthermore, some programs and activities at senior centers, such as fitness classes, meal program, and health education or counseling, may have direct health benefits to older adults.

Several qualitative studies have reported social and health benefits from senior center attendance and participation in senior center activities. For example, Prestoy (1993) and Hutchinson and Gallant (2016) found that senior centers provided an environment for older adults to engage in social relationships and meaningful activities, and maintain a sense of independence. In another study, African Americans at a senior center indicated that they felt less lonely due to socialization with others and activity engagement at the senior center, and reported expansion of their social network since attending the senior center (Taylor-Harris & Zhan, 2011). Participants also reported physical health benefits from participating in exercise classes and gaining a sense of purpose from volunteering at the senior center (Taylor-Harris & Zhan, 2011). Similarly, Kim and Kim (2021) found that Korean Americans perceived various benefits from attending senior centers including self-development, psychological comfort, and the development of a healthy lifestyle.

Other studies have quantitatively assessed the relationship between senior center use and health outcomes. For example, Brunt et al. (1999) found that senior center use was related to lower likelihood of inadequate protein intake among older women in a mid-west state in the US. Farone et al. (2005) found that under stressful life situations Hispanic older adults who attended senior centers reported less psychological stress than Hispanic older adults who did not attend senior centers. Choi and Macdougall’s (2007) study showed that older adults who attended senior centers had lower risk for depression compared to homebound older adults. Additionally, studies in Asian countries showed that senior center use was associated with higher levels of physical functioning and vitality (H.-S. Kim et al., 2011), lower risk for cognitive decline (S. H. Lee & Kim, 2016), and lower likelihood of suicidal ideation (among older adults who lived alone) (B. Kim et al., 2019). In one study, however, senior center attendance frequency was not significantly related to depression, psychological wellbeing, or social network (S. Lee et al., 2023).

The Current Study

Although previous studies have documented a positive relationship between senior center use and older adults’ health, the amount of research in this area is limited. Many studies were conducted outside of the United States, and their findings may not apply to American senior centers due to differences in senior center policies and program setups., To date, there has been a dearth of quantitative evidence on the relationships of senior center use to older adults’ health outcomes in the United States. Furthermore, previous studies have mostly focused on perceived benefits of senior center use or comparison between senior center users and non-users, overlooking older adults’ senior center engagement level, despite its potential importance to health as emphasized by Activity Theory (Havighurst, 1961; Versey, 2015).

To address this research gap, this study examined the relationship between senior center attendance and older adults’ health using a diverse sample collected from 23 senior centers in Los Angeles and neighboring counties in Southern California. Using data from self-administered surveys, we examined two attendance behaviors related to older adults’ senior center engagement level, attendance frequency and attendance length, and their associations with older adults’ physical and mental health. Additionally, we explored if the relationships between senior center attendance and these health outcomes varied by gender (male vs. female) and age (younger than 75 vs. 75 or older), given that these subgroups usually have different activity needs and preferences (Heo et al., 2017; Keyes et al., 2022; Turner, 2024).

Methods

Study Design and Data

This study used cross-sectional survey data collected from older adults at senior centers. The research team conducted surveys in 2023 at 24 senior centers in diverse urban and suburban communities in Los Angeles County and neighboring counties, using a self-administered paper-and-pencil survey. In one center, the senior center attendance frequency was measured for the past three months (instead of past 4 weeks) and therefore was excluded from the analysis. Of the 23 centers included in the analysis, 22 were operated by city governments, and one center was operated by a non-profit organization. Twenty-one centers only offer programs/services to older adults. Two centers were recreation centers in their cities designated for senior programs/services but also offered programs/services for other age groups. Demographically, 8 centers were located in communities with more than 50% Hispanics, 3 in communities with over 60% Non-Hispanic Asians, and 8 in communities with more than 50% Non-Hispanic Whites. The hosting communities of these centers had different socioeconomic conditions as indicated by area deprivation index (ADI; Kind & Buckingham, 2018), with 9 communities in the higher 50 percentile (more disadvantaged) and 13 in the lower 50% percentile (less disadvantaged) within California. One community’s ADI was not available.

The research team typically spent 2 to 3 days recruiting participants and conducting surveys at each senior center. The specific days were selected based on the program schedule and in consultation with the senior center directors/program coordinators to maximize the number of responses and to reach different types of users. While at the centers, the research team were stationed at the lobby/entrance or in a highly noticeable area. Senior center users aged 50 years or older were eligible to participate in the survey. The vast majority of the participants completed the survey immediately after the recruitment, while a very small percentage of participants took the survey home and returned it on a different day. In addition to the English version, Spanish/Chinese language surveys were available at centers for Spanish/Chinese speakers with limited or no English proficiency. A $10 gift card was provided to participants as an incentive. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the study-affiliated university.

Survey Measures

Health outcomes include feeling of loneliness, physical health and mental health. Feeling of loneliness was measured using the 3-item UCLA loneliness scale (Hughes et al., 2004), which included questions: “1) How often do you feel that you lack companionship? 2) How often do you feel left out? and 3) How often do you feel isolated from others?” (1 = hardly ever; 2 = some of the time; 3 = often). An aggregate loneliness score was created by summing the scores of the three questions (Steptoe et al., 2013).

Physical and mental health were measured using the SF-12 survey, a well-established and validated health-related quality-of-life questionnaire (Ware et al., 1996). The SF-12 survey consists of 12 questions that cover 8 health domains related to physical and mental health. The domains related to physical health include General Health (GH), Physical Functioning (PF), Role Physical (RP), and Body Pain (BP). The domains related to mental health include Vitality (VT), Social Functioning (SF), Role Emotional (RE), and Mental Health (MH). The SF-12 uses a norm-based scoring approach in which 50 represents the average score of physical and mental health in the general U.S. population. Following the SF-12’s weighted scoring method (Ware et al., 1995), we created an overall physical health score and mental health score for each participant.

Senior center attendance length was measured by the question “How long have you been attending this senior center?” with the answers being coded as “less than 1 year,” “1 to 2 years,” “3 to 5 years,” “6 to 10 years,” and “more than 10 years.” Senior center frequency was measured by the question “During the past 4 weeks, how often have you attended this senior center?” with the answers being coded as “less than 1 day per week,” “1 day per week,” “2 to 3 days per week,” and “4 or more days per week.”

Socio-demographic control variables included gender, age, education level, marital status, and race/ethnicity. The measures of these variables were reported in Table 1.

Table 1:

Socio-demographic Characteristics of the Study Sample

Variable n %
Gender
 Male 423 26.6
 Female 1,165 73.4
Age (Mean = 73.6)
 50–64 209 13.6
 65–74 607 39.4
 75+ 723 47.0
Marital Status
 Married 638 40.3
 Divorced 301 19.0
 Widowed 399 25.2
 Separated 46 2.9
 Single, never been married 172 10.9
 Other 29 1.8
Race/Ethnicity
 Non-Hispanic White 541 35.1
 Non-Hispanic Black 107 7.0
 Non-Hispanic Asian/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 420 27.3
 Hispanic 440 28.6
 Other 32 2.1
Education
 Less than high school 159 10.1
 Some high school 99 6.3
 High school graduate or GED 229 14.5
 Some college 341 21.6
 Associates/Technical degree 162 10.3
 Four-year college degree 285 18.0
 Graduate work or degree 306 19.4
Annual Household Income
 Less than $15,000 328 20.8
 $15,000 – $24,999 260 16.5
 $25,000 – $49,999 240 15.2
 $50,000 – $74,999 167 10.6
 $75,000 – $99,999 95 6.0
 $100,000 – $149,999 79 5.0
 $150,000 or more 38 2.4
 Did not disclose 368 23.4
Open in a new tab

Data Analysis

The study data had a clustered structure because the participants were sampled from different senior centers (i.e., individuals nested within centers). In clustered data, observations within a cluster may be correlated. Failure to account such clustering may result in under-estimation of standard errors, and consequently, inflation of Type 1 error during data analyses (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Thus, in this study we used linear mixed effects models with random intercept (i.e., random intercept model) to account for the clustering within the data. Linear mixed effects model (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002; Snijders & Bosker, 2012) is a well-established approach for analyzing clustered data in social and health sciences (e.g., Hedeker, Gibbons, & Flay, 1994; Prusynski et al., 2021). By including a random intercept, the model allows for the mean of response variables to vary across clusters, which accounts for the correlation among observations within a cluster and produces appropriate estimate of the standard errors for the regression coefficients (Desai & Begg, 2008). In general, estimation of a random intercept model requires a sample of 20+ clusters with 15+ observations per cluster (Snijders & Bosker, 2012), which was met by this study. Because our purpose was to account for within-cluster correlation in data analysis, we only included random intercept and not other random effects (e.g., random slopes) in the model.

For each health outcome, we estimated a main model (Model#1) that included the main effects of senior center attendance variables and the control variables. Then, we added the interaction effects between senior center attendance variables and gender (Model#2a) and age (Model#2b). In situations where any senior center attendance variable had a significant interaction with a moderator, we estimated the main models for different groups defined by the moderator. All data analyses were performed using Stata 15.

Results

Sample Characteristics

Table 1 reported the socio-demographic characteristics of the study sample. Of all the participants, 73.4% were female, and 47.0% were 75 years or older. Forty percent were married and 34.1% were living alone. The largest three races/ethnicities were Non-Hispanic White (35.1%), Hispanic (28.6%), and Non-Hispanic Asian/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (27.3%). Thirty-seven percent had a four-year college or higher degrees. Approximately half of the participants had an annual (2022) household income less than $50,000 and a quarter of the participants chose not to disclose income information.

Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables

Table 2 showed the descriptive statistics for senior center attendance variables and health outcomes. Thirty-eight percent of the participants attended the senior center for 6 or more years, 17.7% for 3 to 5 years, 18.6% for 1 to 2 years, and 25.4% for less than 1 year. During the past 4 weeks, 37.6% participants attended the senior center 4 or more days per week, 37.0% at a frequency of 2 to 3 days per week, 13.6% at a frequency of 1 day per week, and 11.8% attended the senior center less than 1 day per week. The average loneliness score was 4.2 on a scale of 3 (least lonely) to 9 (most lonely), indicating the majority of the participants did not feel lonely. On average, the physical and mental health score were 44.8 and 52.0. Based on Ware et al.’s (1995) US national data published in 1995, the study sample had average mental health scores (51.1 for age 55–64; 51.7 for age 65–74; and 52.8 for age 75+) similar to the national sample (50.6 for age 55–64; 52.1 for age 65–74; and 50.6 for age 75+). For physical health, the study sample and the national sample had similar scores among age 55–64 (study sample = 45.3 vs. national sample = 46.6) and age 65–74 (study sample = 45.5 vs. national sample = 43.7). However, for age group 75+ the study sample had higher physical health score than the national sample (44.2 vs. 38.7).

Table 2:

Descriptive Statistics of Variables on Senior Center Attendance and Health Outcomes

Variable Total Male Female Age: 50–64 Age: 65–74 Age≥75
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
Senior center attendance length
 Less than 1 year 404 (25.4) 108 (25.5) 292 (25.3) 91 (43.5) 177 (29.5) 121 (16.8)
 1 to 2 years 295 (18.6) 78 (18.4) 216 (18.7) 45 (21.5) 137 (22.8) 102 (14.2)
 3 to 5 years 281 (17.7) 91 (21.5) 188 (16.3) 34 (16.3) 127 (21.1) 106 (14.7)
 6 to 10 years 255 (16.1) 76 (18.0) 179 (15.5) 21 (10.1) 95 (15.8) 132 (18.3)
 More than 10 years 353 (22.2) 70 (16.6) 281 (24.3) 18 (8.6) 65 (10.8) 259 (36.0)
Senior center attendance frequency in the past 4 weeks
 Less than 1 day per week 188 (11.8) 46 (10.9) 139 (12.0) 36 (17.2) 73 (12.1) 72 (10.0)
 1 day per week 216 (13.6) 44 (10.4) 171 (14.7) 36 (17.2) 76 (12.6) 97 (13.5)
 2 to 3 days per week 589 (37.0) 136 (32.2) 451 (38.9) 64 (30.6) 207 (34.3) 295 (41.0)
 4 or more days per week 598 (37.6) 196 (46.5) 399 (34.4) 73 (34.9) 248 (41.1) 256 (35.6)
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Loneliness (N=1,597) 4.2 (1.56) 4.3 (1.65) 4.2 (1.53) 4.3 (1.65) 4.2 (1.58) 4.1 (1.50)
Physical Health (N=1,551) 44.8 (9.54) 44.5 (9.57) 44.9 (9.55) 45.0 (9.41) 45.5 (9.35) 44.2 (9.85)
Mental Health (N=1,551) 52.0 (9.28) 51.4 (9.64) 52.2 (9.15) 51.0 (9.30) 51.7 (9.38) 52.8 (9.04)
Open in a new tab

Associations between Senior Center Attendance and Health Outcomes

Table 3 reported the associations between senior center attendance and health outcomes estimated using linear mixed effects models.

Table 3:

Results of Linear Mixed Effects Models for Loneliness, Mental Health, and Physical Health

Loneliness (N=1,438) Mental Health (N=1,402) Physical Health (N=1,402)
Model#1 Model#2a Model#2b Model#1 Model#2a Model#2b Model#1 Model#2a Model#2b
Variable b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE)
SC length (ref: < 1 yr)
 1–2 yrs −.11 (.12) −.18 (.24) .01 (.15) 1.86 (.75) 2.43 (1.46) 1.07 (.92) 1.95* (.78) 1.32 (1.52) 1.53 (.95)
 3–5 yrs −.04 (.12) −.18 (.22) .08 (.15) .95 (.76) 1.68 (1.37) .59 (.95) −.20 (.80) −.58 (1.43) −.99 (.98)
 6–10 yrs −.32* (.13) −.43 (.24) −.42* (.17) 1.75* (.79) 2.11 (1.47) 1.47 (1.05) 1.13 (.83) 1.48 (1.53) .25 (1.09)
 >10 yrs −.35** (.12) −.48 (.25) −.48* (.20) 2.44** (.76) 3.35* (1.54) 3.10* (1.20) .62 (.80) 1.60 (1.61) −2.24 (1.24)
SC freq. (ref:<1 day/wk)
 1 day/wk −.13 (.16) .50 (.33) −.35 (.21) .08 (.96) −.21 (2.04) .73 (1.28) 1.64 (1.00) −1.70 (2.11) 1.07 (1.33)
 2–3 days/wk −.11 (.13) −.13 (.27) −.34 (.18) .77 (.81) .53 (1.67) 1.11 (1.08) 1.01 (.85) 1.95 (1.73) .34 (1.12)
 4+ days/wk −.33* (.13) −.31 (.26) −.44* (.18) 1.11 (.82) 1.30 (1.60) 1.53 (1.08) 1.75* (.86) 2.13 (1.67) −.01 (1.12)
SC length×female
 1–2 yrs×female .09 (.28) −.76 (1.69) .82 (1.76)
 3–5 yrs×female .22 (.27) −1.05 (1.64) .41 (1.71)
 6–10 yrs×female .18 (.28) −.48 (1.72) −.65 (1.79)
 >10 yrs×female .18 (.28) −1.16 (1.72) −1.24 (1.78)
SC freq.×female
 1 day/wk×female −.79* (.37) .35 (2.31) 4.18 (2.40)
 2–3 days/wk×female .03 (.31) .28 (1.91) −1.23 (1.98)
 4+ days/wk×female −.02 (.30) −.29 (1.86) −.51 (1.93)
SC length×age 75+
 1–2 yrs×age 75+ −.41 (.26) 2.43 (1.57) 1.41 (1.63)
 3–5 yrs×age 75+ −.41 (.26) 1.30 (1.59) 2.02 (1.65)
 6–10 yrs×age 75+ .09 (.26) 1.07 (1.60) 2.18 (1.66)
 >10 yrs×age 75+ .04 (.26) −.15 (1.60) 4.71** (1.65)
SC frequency×age 75+
 1 day/wk×age 75+ .53 (.32) −1.44 (1.94) 1.20 (2.01)
 2–3 days/wk×age 75+ .53* (.27) −.72 (1.64) 1.42 (1.70)
 4+ days/wk×age 75+ .30 (.27) −.93 (1.65) 4.07* (1.71)
Female −.24* (.09) −.27 (.30) −.23* (.09) 1.05 (.57) 1.68 (1.85) 1.02 (.56) .42 (.59) .68 (1.92) .51 (.59)
Age 75+ −.42 (.27) .36 (1.67) −5.12** (1.73)
Age −.01* (.01) −.01* (.01) .04 (.03) .04 (.03) −.09* (.03) −.09* (.03)
Being married −.70** (.08) −.70** (.08) −.69** (.08) 1.26* (.52) 1.26* (.52) 1.24* (.51) 1.12* (.54) 1.14* (.54) 1.12* (.54)
Race/ethnicity (ref: NHW)
 NHB −.26 (.16) −.26 (.16) −.26 (.16) .60 (.99) .60 (.99) .58 (.98) .27 (1.06) .24 (1.06) .25 (1.06)
 NHA .10 (.11) .10 (.11) .11 (.11) −1.41* (.64) −1.40* (.64) −1.43* (.64) 1.39 (.74) 1.37 (.74) 1.34 (.74)
 HSP −.35** (.12) −.34** (.12) −.31** (.11) .39 (.70) .40 (.70) .23 (.69) 1.73* (.77) 1.72* (.77) 1.95* (.76)
 Other −.15 (.30) −.18 (.30) −.13 (.30) −1.79 (1.83) −1.69 (1.84) −1.90 (1.83) −.62 (1.91) −.58 (1.91) −.36 (1.90)
Education −.04 (.02) −.05 (.02) −.04 (.02) .67** (.14) .67** (.14) .66** (.14) .49** (.15) .51** (.15) .51** (.15)
Constant 6.21** (.45) 6.27** (.50) 5.42** (.23) 42.99** (2.76) 42.56** (3.07) 45.79** (1.44) 45.27** (2.92) 44.98** (3.23) 40.81** (1.53)
Open in a new tab

Note:

*

p < .05

**

p < .01.

NHW = Non-Hispanic White; NHB = Non-Hispanic Black; NHA = Non-Hispanic Asian/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander; HSP = Hispanic.

Loneliness

For the entire sample, attending senior center for 6–10 years (b = −.32, p < .05) or more than 10 years (b = −.35, p < .01) was associated with lower loneliness compared to less than 1 year. Additionally, attending senior center 4+ days/week was associated with lower loneliness (b = −.33, p < .05) compared to less than 1 day/week. There was a significant interaction between attendance frequency and gender. Specifically, attending 1 day/week was had a stronger negative relationship with loneliness for females than for males. Separate analysis showed that attending 1 day/week had a non-significant negative relationship with loneliness (b = −.29, p > .05) for females but a non-significant positive relationship with loneliness for males (b = .52, p > .05). Additionally, for females attending for more than 10 years (b = −.32, p < .05) or 4+ days/week (b = −.31, p < .05) was associated with lower loneliness. For males, attendance variables were not significantly associated with loneliness.

Senior center attendance also had a significant interaction with age. For individuals aged 75+, attending senior center for 2–3 days/week had a weaker negative relationship with loneliness than their younger counterparts (b = .53, p < .05). Separate analyses showed that attending 2–3 days/week had a non-significant negative relationship with loneliness for individuals younger than 75 (b = −.33, p > .05) but a non-significant positive relationship with loneliness for individuals aged 75 (b =.19, p > .05). Additionally, for individuals aged 75+ attending for 1–2 years (b = −.42, p < .05) and more than 10 years (b = −.48, p < .01) were each associated with lower loneliness. Attendance frequency, however, was not significantly associated with loneliness for this age group. For individuals younger than 75, attending for 6–10 years (b = −.37, p < .05) or 10+ years (b = −.42, p < .05) was associated with lower loneliness. Additionally, attending 4+ days/week was associated with lower loneliness (b = −.43, p < .05).

SF-12 Mental Health

Attending senior center for 1–2 years (b = 1.86, p < 0.05), 6–10 years (b = 1.75, p < .05), or more than 10 years (b = 2.44, p < .05) was associated with better mental health compared to less than 1 year. Attendance frequency did not have a significant relationship with mental health. Additionally, there was no significant interaction between senior center attendance and gender/age.

SF-12 Physical Health

Attending senior center for 1–2 years was associated with better physical health (b = 1.95, p < .05) compared to less than 1 year. Additionally, attending 4+ days/week was associated with better physical health (b = 1.75, p < .05) compared to less than 1 day/week. Furthermore, there was a significant interaction between attendance length/frequency and age. For older adults aged 75+, attending for more than 10 years (b = 4.71, p < .01) or 4+ days/week (b = 4.07, p < .05) had a stronger positive relationship with physical health than their younger counterparts. Separate analysis showed that for individuals aged 75+ attending for 1–2 years (b = 3.33, p < .05), 6–10 years (b = 2.74, p < .05), or more than 10 years (b = 3.12, p < .01) was associated with better physical health. Also, attending 4+ days/week was associated with better physical health (b = 4.04, p < .01) for individuals aged 75+. In contrast, attendance variables did not have a significant relationship with physical health for individuals younger than 75.

Discussion

This study found that in general longer or more frequent senior center attendance was associated with lower loneliness or better mental health, even though there were certain variations between genders and age groups. This is consistent with Activity Theory, in which higher level of activity engagement is linked to better wellbeing. Given the majority of the senior center programs are delivered in a group format, older adults with longer and more frequent attendance may be more likely to develop and maintain social relationships with other center users. Additionally, with longer and more frequent senior center attendance, older adults may be more likely to engage in multiple types of activities. This in turn may increase the variety of their social network and roles, providing a stronger buffer for the negative impacts of role loss (Versey, 2015). In previous qualitative studies, social connection appeared to be one of the most frequently reported benefits of senior center attendance (Hutchinson & Gallant, 2016; Taylor-Harris & Zhan, 2011). Additionally, through engagement in meaningful activities at senior centers, older adults also felt a sense of independence and self-development/enhancement (J. Kim & Kim, 2021), which provides additional support for the positive association between senior center attendance and mental health.

There were limited gender differences in terms of the relationships between senior center attendance and health outcomes, as indicated by the non-significant interaction effects in the models. Even though the regression coefficients of senior center attendance variables in the male subgroup analysis for loneliness were not statistically significant (as compared to the female subgroup), the sizes of the coefficients were similar between the two genders, and the non-significance was likely due to the small sample size and insufficient statistical power in male subgroup analysis. The only notable difference was that attending senior center one day/week was negatively associated with loneliness to a greater extent for females than for males. According to the Social Role Theory (Eagly, 1987), males in general are socially expected and developed to be less communal and relationship-oriented than females. Therefore, compared to females, males may need more frequent senior center attendance to create and maintain strong social relationships. Also, males may have more difficulty than females to make friends at senior centers due to the fact that the majority of the senior center users are females (National Council on Aging, 2021). Another possibility is that the activities favored by males at some senior centers were less effective in building social connection than those activities favored by females. In spite of the weak evidence on gender differences found by this study, future research may still consider examining potential gender differences in the relationship between senior center attendance and health outcomes using a larger male sample.

The relationship between senior center attendance and loneliness may also differ between older and younger older adults. The loneliness level was predicted by attendance length and frequency among adults younger than 75 but was only predicted by attendance length among adults aged 75+. Among older adults, younger individuals tend to be more socially active (Marcum, 2013) and open to new experiences (Sharp et al., 2019) than their older counterparts. Therefore, they are more likely to try new programs and activities and make new friends at the senior center. As a result, the attendance frequency may have a stronger impact on social network and loneliness for younger older adults.

The quantitative relationship between senior center attendance and physical health has rarely been assessed previously. An exception was a study based on Korean older adults, which found senior center attendance was positively associated with physical function (H.-S. Kim et al., 2011). Our results suggest that for American older adults the positive relationship between senior center attendance length/frequency may be more pronounced among older adults aged 75+ (versus age < 75). One possible explanation is that the impact of senior center attendance on physical health is less likely to be detected among younger older adults as many of them may still have reasonably good physical health condition. Another explanation is that healthy older adults are more likely to attend than those who are not healthy.

Limitations

The findings of this study should be considered along with the following limitations. First, the study data was cross-sectional and could only test correlations not casual relationships, even though there were some theoretical/empirical support for senior centers’ health benefits. This may particularly apply to the senior center attendance frequency, which was measured in a timeframe of past 4 weeks. In fact, the vast majority of previous studies in this area used cross-sectional observational data. Research has shown that physical or mental illness may negatively affect individuals’ social functioning and engagement, and the relationship between social engagement and health can be bi-directional (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2020; Zhao et al., 2023). Future studies should consider collecting longitudinal data to see if changes in senior center attendance will be associated with change in health outcomes. Second, this study used self-administered survey to collect data, which may be subject to recall bias. If possible, future research may consider obtaining older adults’ senior center attendance records from senior centers. Third, this study examined the relationships of senior center attendance to health outcomes among senior center users. While this study revealed possible dosage effects of senior center use, it did not compare senior center users to non-users. Although one may argue that older adults with low level of senior center use resemble non-users, the finding of this study may only be used to indicate the impact of senior centers among users. Fourth, this study did not measure and control for other forms of social participation such as churches or other social organizations. Inclusion of other types of social participations in the models will more clearly reveal the role of senior centers in healthy aging. Fifth, this study did not include potential mediators in the statistical models. Doing so in future studies will help gain a better understanding of how senior centers affect older adults’ health. For example, does senior senior’s health benefits actualize mostly from increased socialization/social network, sense of independence/fulfillment, or directly from participation in health enhancing activities such as fitness classes, or a mixture of these mechanisms. Additionally, do different groups of older adults (e.g., gender, age) benefit from senior center attendance in different ways? Researchers may also gain such understanding by assessing the relationship of older adults’ health outcomes to their participation in different types of activities at senior centers (e.g., volunteering, meal program, arts and crafts).

Conclusion and Implications

Despite the limitations mentioned above, this study examined the relationships of senior center attendance to older adults’ health as well as the gender and age variations in those relationships. Such quantitative assessments based on large and diverse samples are generally lacking in the United States. Different from most of the previous studies focusing on comparison of senior center user and non-users, this study contributes to the literature by examining and highlighting the importance of senior center attendance frequency and length to older adults’ health. We found the health benefits from senior center attendance were mostly evident among highly involved older adults (e.g., those who have attended the senior center for 6 or more years and/or 4+ days per week in the past 4 weeks). There were limited gender differences with respect to the relationships between senior center attendance and health. However, certain relationships differed between age groups. More frequent senior center attendance was associated with lower levels of loneliness for older adults younger than 75 but not for older adults aged 75+. On the other hand, longer and more frequent senior center attendance was associated with better physical health for older adults aged 75+ but not for those younger than 75.

Based on the findings of this study and previous studies, it may be promising to promote older adults’ health through senior center attendance. This involves two levels of research and practices: 1) converting non-users to users of senior centers, and 2) retaining senior center users and increasing users’ level of engagement with senior centers. To recruit non-users, senior centers may partner with different community agencies (e.g., churches, non-profit organizations) and promote senior center use via information sharing and/or referral. Focus may be given to male or younger older adults who are under-represented groups at senior centers. Given that many young older adults believe senior centers are for very old people (Somerville et al., 2019), senior centers may consider changing such misconception through program modification and marketing. In the meantime, healthcare providers may refer older adult patients, particularly those with social isolation or loneliness issues, to senior centers as a form of intervention. Such linkage between healthcare system and senior centers is important for community health (Noël et al., 2020). In terms of user retention and promotion of user involvement, senior centers should ensure that their programs and services meet their users’ needs and preferences. Additionally, they may focus on building relationships between staff and users through quality services and individualized care, as well as facilitating friendships and sense of community among center users through group activities/programs and social events.

Given that less than 20% of older adults aged 65+ used senior centers (Cohen-Mansfield et al., 2005), and if senior centers have an actual benefit to health and well-being, interventions that promote senior center use and involvement will be needed along with longitudinal studies to better understand how to optimize their health impact.

Table 4:

Results of Mixed Linear Effects Models for Loneliness and Physical Health by Age/Gender.

Loneliness Loneliness Physical Health
Age≥75 (n=674) Age<75 (n=764) Female (n=1058) Male (n=380) Age≥75 (n=653) Age<75 (n=749)
Variable b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE)
SC length
 <1 yr (ref.) – – – – – –
 1–2 yrs −.42* (.20) .04 (.15) −.08 (.14) −.09 (.26) 3.33* (1.36) 1.40 (.93)
 3–5 yrs −.35 (.20) .11 (.16) .03 (.15) −.10 (.24) 1.50 (1.37) −.98 (.97)
 6–10 yrs −.35 (.19) −.37* (.18) −.27 (.15) −.33 (.26) 2.74* (1.30) .19 (1.08)
 >10 yrs −.48** (.17) −.42* (.21) −.32* (.14) −.37 (.28) 3.12** (1.16) −2.38 (1.23)
SC frequency
 <1 day/wk (ref.) – – – – – –
 1 day/wk .19 (.23) −.38 (.22) −.29 (.17) .52 (.35) 2.34 (1.55) 1.08 (1.29)
 2–3 days/wk .19 (.19) −.33 (.18) −.09 (.15) −.17 (.28) 1.98 (1.32) .31 (1.09)
 4+ days/wk −.15 (.20) −.43* (.18) −.31* (.15) −.33 (.27) 4.04** (1.35) .01 (1.10)
Open in a new tab

Note:

*

p < .05

**

p < .01.

All control variables were included in the analysis but not shown in this table.

Funding statement:

This research was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R16GM146666; PI: Hui Xie). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interest: Not applicable.

Ethical approval: This research was approved by the Institutional Review Board of California State University Northridge.

Informed consent statements: Written informed consent was used.

Contributor Information

Hui Xie, California State University Northridge, Department of Recreation and Tourism Management, California State University, Northridge.

Cinthia Camacho, Department of Social Work, California State University, Northridge.

Brenda Jauregui, Department of Health Sciences, California State University, Northridge.

Bing Han, Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California

Deborah Cohen, Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

Data availability statement:

Not applicable.

References

  1. Brunt AR, Schafer E, & Oakland MJ (1999). Ability of social support to predict at-risk dietary intake and anthropometric measures in white, rural, community-dwelling elderly women. Journal of Nutrition for the Elderly, 19(1), 49–69. 10.1300/J052v19n01_04 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2000). National diabetes statistics report, 2020: Estimates of diabetes and its burden in the United States (cdc:85309). https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/85309 [Google Scholar]
  3. Choi NG, & McDougall GJ (2007). Comparison of depressive symptoms between homebound older adults and ambulatory older adults. Aging & Mental Health, 11(3), 310–322. 10.1080/13607860600844614 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cohen-Mansfield J, Parpura-Gill A, Campbell-Kotler M, Vass J, & Rosenberg FR (2005). Elderly persons’ preferences for topics of discussion and shared interest groups. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 44(3–4), 39–57. 10.1300/J083v44n03_04 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Colby SL, & Ortman JM (2014). Projections of the size and composition of the U.S. population: 2014 to 2060 (Nos. P25–1143; Current Population Reports). U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.pdf [Google Scholar]
  6. Desai M, & Begg MD (2008). A comparison of regression approaches for analyzing clustered data. American Journal of Public Health, 98(8), 1425–1429. 10.2105/AJPH.2006.108233 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Eagly AH (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. (pp. xii, 178). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  8. Farone DW, Fitzpatrick TR, & Tran TV (2005). Use of senior centers as a moderator of stress-related distress among Latino elders. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 46(1), 65–83. 10.1300/J083v46n01_05 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gurrentz B, & Mayol-Garcia Y (2021). Marriage, divorce, widowhood remain prevalent among older populations. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/love-and-loss-among-older-adults.html
  10. Hales CM, Carroll MD, Fryar CD, & Ogden CL (2020). Prevalence of obesity and severe obesity among adults: United States, 2017–2018. NCHS Data Brief, 360, 1–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Havighurst RJ (1961). Successful aging. The Gerontologist, 1, 8–13. 10.1093/geront/1.1.8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hedeker D, Gibbons RD, & Flay BR (1994). Random-effects regression models for clustered data with an example from smoking prevention research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(4), 757–765. 10.1037//0022-006x.62.4.757. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Heo J, Chun S, Kim B, Ryu J, & Lee Y (2017). Leisure activities, optimism, and personal growth among the young-old, old-old, and oldest-old. Educational Gerontology, 43(6), 289–299. 10.1080/03601277.2017.1289457 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hughes ME, Waite LJ, Hawkley LC, & Cacioppo JT (2004). A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys: Results from two population-based studies. Research on Aging, 26(6), 655–672. 10.1177/0164027504268574 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hutchinson SL, & Gallant KA (2016). Can senior centers be contexts for aging in third places. Journal of Leisure Research, 48(1), 50–68. 10.18666/JLR-2016-V48-I1-6263 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Keyes L, Li Q, Collins B, & Rivera-Torres S (2022). Senior center service utilization: do social ties affect participation patterns? Journal of Applied Gerontology, 41(2), 526–533. 10.1177/0733464820975905 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kim B, Lim S, Hong W, & Kim H (2019). Suicidal Ideation among older people by different living arrangement: The mediating effect of pleasurable activities. Journal of Korean Academy of Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing, 28(3), 248–258. 10.12934/jkpmhn.2019.28.3.248 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kim H-S, Harada K, Miyashita M, Lee E-A, Park J-K, & Nakamura Y (2011). Use of senior center and the health-related quality of life in Korean older adults. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, 44(4), 149–156. 10.3961/jpmph.2011.44.4.149 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Kim J, & Kim J (2021). Exploring health benefits through senior center engagement: A qualitative investigation of older Korean immigrants. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 45(1), 1–13. 10.1080/01924788.2019.1698121 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kind AJH, & Buckingham W (2018). Making neighborhood disadvantage metrics accessible: The Neighborhood Atlas. New England Journal of Medicine, 378, 2456–2458. 10.1056/NEJMp1802313 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lee SH, & Kim YB (2016). Which type of social activities may reduce cognitive decline in the elderly?: A longitudinal population-based study. BMC Geriatrics, 16(1). 10.1186/s12877-016-0343-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Lee S, Lim XJ, Koh HQH, Yeo PA, Zhong EY, & Wee SL (2023). Perceptions of senior center and psychosocial wellbeing during COVID-19. Activities, Adaptation and Aging. 10.1080/01924788.2023.2247718 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. MaloneBeach EE, & Langeland KL (2011). Boomers’ prospective needs for senior centers and related services: A survey of persons 50–59. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 54(1), 116–130. 10.1080/01634372.2010.524283 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Marcum CS (2013). Age differences in daily social activities. Research on Aging, 35(5), 612–640. 10.1177/0164027512453468 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, Arnett DK, Blaha MJ, Cushman M, Das SR, de Ferranti S, Després J-P, Fullerton HJ, Howard VJ, Huffman MD, Isasi CR, Jiménez MC, Judd SE, Kissela BM, Lichtman JH, Lisabeth LD, Liu S, … Turner MB (2016). Heart disease and stroke statistics—2016 Update. Circulation, 133(4), e38–e360. 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000350 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Social isolation and loneliness in older adults: Opportunities for the health care system. The National Academies Press. 10.17226/25663 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. National Council on Aging. (2021, February 10). What you didn’t know about senior centers. https://www.ncoa.org/article/facts-and-benefits-about-senior-centers-you-probably-didnt-know/
  28. National Council On Aging. (2024, August 15). Get the facts on senior centers and how they serve older adults. https://www.ncoa.org/article/get-the-facts-on-senior-centers/
  29. Noël PH, Wang C-P, Finley EP, Espinoza SE, Parchman ML, Bollinger MJ, & Hazuda HP (2020). Provider-related linkages between primary care clinics and community-based senior centers associated with diabetes-related outcomes. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 39(6), 635–643. 10.1177/0733464818782853 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Pardasani M, & Thompson P (2012). Senior centers: Innovative and emerging models. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 31(1), 52–77. 10.1177/0733464810380545 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Prestoy SF (1993). Quality of life as perceived and experienced through activity, relationships and sense of independence: An ethnography of seven urban older adults who attend a senior citizen’s center [Doctoral Dissertation]. New York University. [Google Scholar]
  32. Prusynski RA, Frogner BK, Skillman SM, Dahal A, & Mroz TM (2021). Therapy assistant staffing and patient quality outcomes in skilled nursing facilities. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 41(2), 352–362. 10.1177/07334648211033417 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Raudenbush SW, & Bryk AS (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  34. Sharp ES, Beam CR, Reynolds CA, & Gatz M (2019). Openness declines in advance of death in late adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 34(1), 124–138. 10.1037/pag0000328 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Snijders TAB, & Bosker RJ (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed). London: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  36. Somerville C, Roldan NV, Bui CN, & Coyle CE (2019). Why don’t older adults use senior centers? Evidence from a sample of Massachusetts adults age 50 and older. Innovation in Aging, 3(Supplement_1), S498–S498. 10.1093/geroni/igz038.1845 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Steptoe A, Shankar A, Demakakos P, & Wardle J (2013). Social isolation, loneliness, and all-cause mortality in older men and women. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15), 5797–5801. 10.1073/pnas.1219686110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Taylor-Harris D, & Zhan HJ (2011). The third-age African American seniors: Benefits of participating in senior multipurpose facilities. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 54(4), 351–371. 10.1080/01634372.2010.539588 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Turner KW (2004). Senior citizens centers: What they offer, who participates, and what they gain. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 43(1), 37–47. 10.1300/J083v43n01_04 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Versey SH (2015). Activity theory. In Whitbourne SK (Ed.). The encyclopedia of adulthood and aging. pp.10–13 10.1002/9781118521373.wbeaa096 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Ware JE, Kosinski M, & Keller SD (1995). SF-12: How to score the SF-12 physical and mental summary scales (2nd ed.). The Health Institute, New England Medical Center. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ware JE, Kosinski M, & Keller SD (1996). A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: Construction of Scales and Preliminary Tests of Reliability and Validity. Medical Care, 34(3), 220–233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Zhao B, Kim JE, Moon J, Nam EW (2023). Social engagement and subjective health among older adults in South Korea: Evidence from the Korean Longitudinal Study of Aging (2006–2018). SSM - Population Health, 21, 101341. 10.1016/j.ssmph.2023.101341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

RESOURCES