Skip to main content
NCBI home page
European Journal of Ageing logoLink to European Journal of Ageing
. 2026 Jul 17;23(1):41. doi: 10.1007/s10433-026-00931-y

Aging in place with disabled and non-disabled children: widowed mothers aged 80 + in an East Asian Familialist Welfare Context

Yueh-Ching Chou 1,2,✉, Bo-Wei Chen 3, Teppo Kröger 4
PMCID: PMC13658752  PMID: 42467135

Abstract

The ageing-in-place experiences of widowed mothers caring for adult children with intellectual disabilities remain underexplored in gerontology and long-term care research. This study compares the experiences of widowed mothers aged 80 and over in Taiwan, an East Asian context in which filial piety continues to shape housing and care arrangements, among those with and without adult children with intellectual disabilities. Drawing on Clapham’s Housing Pathways framework—personal control, identity, social support, and inequality—we analyse semi-structured interviews with 24 widowed mothers (17 with and 7 without adult children with intellectual disabilities) using an abductive thematic approach. Across both groups, ageing in place was strongly preferred, but this preference carried different meanings. For mothers of children with intellectual disabilities, remaining at home was tied to long-term co-residential caregiving, reciprocal interdependence, and concern for their children’s future. For mothers with non-disabled children, it was more closely associated with maintaining independence, supported by family and, in some cases, migrant care workers. Homeownership and community ties fostered stability and belonging, while inequality shaped the extent to which ageing in place could be sustained. These findings show that later-life housing pathways are shaped not only by personal preference but also by caregiving histories, gendered family relations, and culturally embedded expectations of care. The study highlights the need for policies that better support older women with diverse care trajectories in East Asian familialist welfare contexts.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-026-00931-y.

Keywords: Aging in place, Housing pathways, Widowed mother, Intellectual disabilities, Family care, East Asia

Introduction

The population aged 80 and over has gained increasing attention in social and health policy due to rapid demographic ageing (Burns et al. 2024; Hülür and Zimmermann 2025). This group consists predominantly of widowed women, who face heightened risks of health decline and long-term care (LTC) needs (Zeng et al. 2002) and are often conceptualised primarily as care recipients (Ness et al. 2014). However, this framing overlooks a subgroup of older women who continue to provide care in very late life. Widowed mothers of adult children with intellectual disabilities, in particular, often sustain long-term caregiving relationships within the home (Ryan et al. 2014; Weeks et al. 2009). As they age, these women occupy dual and potentially conflicting positions as both caregivers and emerging care receivers, yet their experiences remain largely absent from gerontological research.

Research on later-life living arrangements, including ageing in place and relocation, has been dominated by quantitative approaches that prioritise structural determinants such as health status, housing conditions, and service availability (Forsyth and Molinsky 2021; Pani-Harreman et al. 2021). Although these studies highlight the importance of family support, they rarely capture how caregiving relationships shape housing decisions in advanced age. Little is known about how widowed mothers aged 80 + navigate housing and care while continuing to support adult children with intellectual disabilities. Existing research typically examines either older adults’ care needs or families of people with intellectual disabilities separately (Baumbusch et al. 2017; Seltzer et al. 2011), leaving the intersection of later-life ageing, lifelong caregiving, and housing decisions underexplored. Comparing widowed mothers with and without adult children with intellectual disabilities reveal how care relationships across the life course shape housing pathways, personal control, and intergenerational dependence in later life.

This study focuses on widowed mothers aged 80 and over for both substantive and analytical reasons. Widowhood often marks a critical transition in later life, bringing changes in living arrangements, support networks, and decision-making (Bennett and Soulsby 2012; Carr and Utz 2001). Women in this age group are more likely than men to survive into advanced age and to experience widowhood (Smith et al. 2005; Zeng et al. 2002). Focusing on mothers captures gendered caregiving trajectories, as women have typically assumed primary caregiving roles across the life course (Pinquart and Sörensen 2006). This focus highlights a group experiencing the combined pressures of ageing, widowhood, and ongoing or anticipated care needs. Partnered older adults were excluded because having a spouse substantially shapes care arrangements, housing decisions, and support networks (Agree and Glaser 2009). Widowed men were also excluded, as their caregiving trajectories and intergenerational support patterns may differ (Silverstein and Giarrusso 2010). In addition, partnered older adults and widowed fathers are less common in the 80 + population, supporting the focus on widowed mothers as the most analytically coherent group for examining later-life housing and care.

Taiwan provides a valuable context for exploring these dynamics. Although LTC reforms have expanded services in recent years, access remains uneven (Chou et al. 2024; Hu and Chou 2022). Families continue to bear major responsibility for later-life support within a policy and cultural context shaped by strong intergenerational expectations (Abrahamson 2017; Aspalter 2006; Yeh et al. 2013). Institutional care also remains socially sensitive for some families. In this context, ageing in place is shaped by both personal preference and constraints related to resources, family relationships, and service availability. Rather than treating Taiwan as representative of East Asia, this study uses it as a context-specific case to explore how housing, culture, gendered care, and disability intersect in later life.

Geographical gerontology emphasises the relationship between older adults and their environments, including housing, community, and service contexts (Skinner et al. 2015; Yarker et al. 2024). Housing in later life is not only a place of residence but also a key site where care and social relationships are organised. To explore this intersection, the study draws on Clapham’s Housing Pathways framework (Clapham 2002, 2010), which conceptualises housing as a life-course process shaped by individual agency and structural constraints. The framework is relevant because decisions about ageing in place or relocation among widowed mothers are closely tied to caregiving responsibilities, intergenerational support, and material conditions. Its four domains—personal control, identity, social support, and inequality—guide the analysis. Housing pathways research has mainly focused on younger populations (Clapham et al. 2014), leaving the housing experiences of widowed mothers aged 80 + , with and without adult children with intellectual disabilities, underexplored (Gardiner et al. 2020). This gap is particularly important in Taiwan and similar East Asian familialist welfare contexts, where family caregiving remains central (Abrahamson 2017; Chou et al., 2026; Hu 2020).

This qualitative study explores how widowed mothers aged 80 + in Taiwan, with and without adult children with intellectual disabilities, navigate decisions about ageing in place or relocation. It asks: (1) how they understand their current and future housing and care arrangements; and (2) how caregiving relationships shape these decisions. Comparing the two groups allows exploration of how lifelong caregiving for an adult child with intellectual disabilities shapes co-residence, support, and housing decisions in later life. The study contributes to gerontology by integrating housing, care, disability, and cultural context to better understand later-life housing pathways.

Methods

Study design and recruitment

Semi-structured interviews were used to explore how widowed mothers aged 80 and over, with and without adult children with intellectual disabilities, understood housing and care in later life. The data were drawn from a larger mixed-methods project, Housing Transitions and Quality of Life: Aging Adults with Intellectual Disability and Their Parents (Chou and Kröger 2022), which combined survey data with in-depth interviews.

The larger project included parents aged 65 + co-residing in the community with an adult child (aged 40 +) with intellectual disabilities, together with a comparison group of older adults with non-disabled adult children. Participants were recruited from urban and rural areas through local authorities, parent associations, a non-governmental organisation, and snowball sampling to capture varied living circumstances, including those not actively using formal services.

The present analysis focuses on a purposive subsample of widowed mothers aged 80 + , as widowhood and advanced age represent a critical stage for housing and care decision-making and illuminates gendered life-course caregiving trajectories. Of 60 parents of adult children with intellectual disabilities interviewed, 17 were widowed mothers aged 80 + , compared with only three widowed fathers and two partnered mothers of the same age. Widowed mothers were therefore the most substantively and demographically salient subgroup for focused analysis.

The final sample comprised 24 widowed mothers aged 80 and over: 17 with adult children with intellectual disabilities (WMID) and 7 with non-disabled adult children (WMND) (Table 1). WMID participants were aged 80–95, and their co-residing children were aged 44–67; most were sons with intensive support needs. WMND participants were aged 82–88 and had more varied living arrangements. Across both groups, participants differed in health, income, housing conditions, and access to formal services, allowing the study to capture a range of later-life housing and care experiences. Given the smaller comparison group (17 WMID versus 7 WMND), the comparison was used to identify exploratory contrasts and shared patterns rather than definitive group differences.

Table 1.

Characteristics of widows aged 80 + with disabled and non-disabled children

WMID WMND
How many people interviewed 17 7
Area Urban A City 8 3
Rural B County 9 4
Age Range 80–95 82–88
80–85 12 3
86–90 3 4
91–95 2
Education No formal education 7 2
Primary 9 2
Senior high 3
University 1
Type of housing Flat with a lift 2
2 level townhouse 8 1
3 level townhouse 4 4
4 level townhouse 1
One level house with metal roofing sheets 1 1
One level house (not own the land) 1
3 section compound (not own the land) 1
Whom living with alone 1
With sister only 2
With child with IDs only 4
With live-in migrant care worker only 2
2 generationsa 5 1 (w/unmarried daughter)
3 generationsb 8 1
Social service use Home care 2 1
Day programs for general older adults 4
None 15 2
Hiring a migrant care worker Yes 1 2
No 16 5
Children with intellectual disabilities
Gender Son 14
Daughter 3
Age Range 44–67
44–50 6
51–55 5
56–60 2
61–67 4
Level of disability (assessed) Mild 4
Moderate 5
Severe 6
Profound 2
Social service use Day program 2
None 15
Open in a new tab

WMID = widowed mothers with children with intellectual disabilities; WMND = widowed mothers with non-disabled children WMND. a2 generations: living with children; for WMID it means living with offspring with intellectual disabilities and also other children. b3 generations: living with children and children’ family including grandchildren; for WMID it means living with offspring with intellectual disabilities and other children’s families including grandchildren. cAll townhouses were without a lift

Data collection

Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted by the first author and two experienced practitioners. Semi-structured interviewing enabled exploration of participants’ meanings, preferences, and constraints in relation to housing and care, which could not be captured through survey data alone. The interview guide was informed by the Housing Pathways framework and covered current living arrangements, future residential preferences, caregiving relationships, intergenerational support, service use, and cultural and gendered influences on housing decisions (see Supplementary File 1).

Interviews took place in participants’ homes or service centres and lasted 50–150 minutes. In some interviews, relatives such as a son or daughter-in-law were present and occasionally contributed; however, the analysis focused on the widowed mothers’ narratives. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, anonymised, and checked for accuracy. Ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Board of National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University (IRB: YM103016F), and all participants provided informed consent.

Data analysis

The study used abductive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006; Timmermans and Tavory 2012). This approach enabled analysis through an existing theoretical lens while remaining open to themes emerging from the data. Clapham’s Housing Pathways framework was used as a set of sensitising concepts to explore how housing, care, and later-life inequality intersected in participants’ accounts.

Analysis proceeded in several stages. First, the first author (expertise in disability studies, care research and mixed methods) read the transcripts repeatedly and conducted initial coding across the dataset. A preliminary codebook was then developed, combining deductive codes from the Housing Pathways framework with inductive codes emerging from the interviews. Personal control referred to participants’ ability to make and sustain housing-related decisions. Identity referred to meanings of home linked to security, belonging, self-worth, and family role. Social support referred to help from family, community, or services in maintaining housing and care arrangements. Inequality referred to material, social, or service-related constraints affecting housing options and later-life well-being. These concepts were applied consistently, while related expressions such as autonomy, reciprocity, stigma, and dependence were analysed in relation to, rather than interchangeably with, the four domains.

Second, the second author (expertise in gender and cultural sociology, and qualitative research) independently reviewed a subset of transcripts and the coding structure. Differences in coding and interpretation were discussed within the research team until agreement was reached, and the codebook was refined throughout the process. Comparative analysis of WMID and WMND helped refine thematic categories, identify relationships, preserve contextual meanings, and confirmed theoretical saturation (Strauss and Corbin 1998). Analytic memos were used throughout to document coding decisions, emerging interpretations, and cross-case comparisons.

Following an abductive logic, the analysis moved iteratively and reflexively between data, codes, and theory, while remaining open to “fieldwork surprises” (Willis and Trondman 2000). Codes were grouped into analytical categories and then interpreted through the four housing pathways domains. Unexpected findings—particularly the intersection of gender and culture in shaping housing pathways in advanced age—helped refine and extend Clapham’s framework and address gaps in research on later-life household dynamics in East Asian contexts such as Taiwan. A coding example and thematic structure are provided in Supplementary File 2.

Results

Guided by Clapham’s Housing Pathways framework, the findings are organised into four themes: living arrangements and future residential preferences; housing pathways in advanced age (personal control, identity, social support, and inequality). The analysis then considers additional themes informed, but not predetermined, by the framework, including cultural meanings of institutional care and ageing in place as well as gendered intergenerational care, inheritance, and decision-making. Given the smaller comparison group, cross-group contrasts are interpreted as exploratory.

Theme 1. Living arrangements and future residential preferences

Among the 17 widowed mothers with adult children with intellectual disabilities (WMID), most lived with their disabled child and often also co-resided with non-disabled children in two- and three-generation households. These arrangements reflected long-term caregiving, and their disabled children often provided companionship and some everyday assistance. In contrast, widowed mothers with non-disabled children (WMND) had more varied living arrangements, including living alone, with a migrant care worker, or with other family members (Table 1). Some valued this independence but also described loneliness:

“When we were young, we took care of our kids, but now we live alone….” (May, WMND-W04, 82)

All WMID participants expressed a strong preference to remain in their current homes. Ageing in place was closely tied to long-term cohabitation, attachment to familiar surroundings, and continuing responsibility for their adult children. Moving in with married children was often avoided due to concerns about relationships with daughters-in-law:

“I’ve never considered moving to a care home or living with my [married] sons. I don’t want to trouble my daughters-in-law… I live for OO[son with intellectual disabilities].” (Dors, WMID-S7, 86)

“When OO eats, he drops food… my other children’s families don’t like it… I won’t move to a care home—I’ll stay here until I die.” (Wei, WMID-H19, 81)

Familiar neighbourhoods and routines reinforced this preference:

“I’ve lived here for over 30 years… the neighbours know one another… and I have OO to accompany me.” (Yi, WMID-H24, 82)

Even where housing conditions were poor, some WMID mothers emphasised resilience and interdependence:

“The roof leaks, but it’s fine… my sons will take care of me, and OO helps too.” (Su, WMID-S19, 80)

WMND participants also rejected care homes, but more often framed this in terms of preserving independence and avoiding burdening their children:

“I will not move to live with my children…” (Hong, WMND-C27, 88)

“My son and daughter-in-law are filial; they wouldn’t let me live in a care home…” (Susu, WMND-C2, 85)

For some, migrant care workers enabled ageing in place without direct reliance on children:

“After I had a stroke, they hired a migrant care worker… I’m happy with my current life.” (May, WMND-W04, 82)

These accounts show that both groups preferred ageing in place but attached different meanings to staying at home. For WMID mothers, remaining at home was closely tied to ongoing caregiving, emotional interdependence, and responsibility for a disabled child. For WMND mothers, it was more often associated with preserving personal control, minimising demands on adult children, and, where possible, outsourcing family support with paid care.

Theme 2. Housing pathways in advanced age

Theme 2.1. Personal control: caregiving stability and filial support

For WMID participants, personal control was closely tied to maintaining stable living arrangements and caregiving routines, supported by modest financial resources:

“… Living in the countryside is convenient. We grow vegetables and cook once for all meals. …I worked hard when I was young; now I want to enjoy life. …I receive a farmer’s pension, my son has a disability allowance, and we earn some land rent. …After my husband passed, my children wanted me to sell the house and move to the city, but I refused.” (Wei, WMID-H19, 81)

Maintaining continuity in the home was often prioritised over relocation, even when other family members encouraged change.

WMND participants also linked personal control to housing security, but more often described it through intergenerational trust in their children’s support. Several continued to live independently after transferring property to their children. For them, personal control rested not only on assets but also on the expectation of filial care:

“The house’s ownership was transferred to my sons when my husband passed away. … I’m not worried [about getting old]; my children are filial. … I live here alone and feel at ease.” (Hong, WMND-C27, 88)

Overall, participants in both groups described personal control in relation to housing security and financial resources, though in different ways. Among WMID participants, control was tied to sustaining co-residential caregiving and daily stability, whereas among WMND participants it centred more on independent living supported by filial ties.

Theme 2.2. Identity: caregiving resilience and social recognition

For WMID participants, identity was closely linked to caregiving roles and responsibility for their child’s future:

“I’ve saved money to ensure OO will be cared for after I’m gone… this gives me peace of mind.” (Ming, WMID-H18, 84)

Identity was also shaped by reciprocal interdependence with their adult children with intellectual disabilities and by recognition from other family members:

“My children [4 sons and 1 daughter] are very filial, they give me money. … It doesn’t matter if OO is not smart. I move with difficulty, and he helps me. …I tell him how to cook, and he can cook for us.” (Yi, WMID-H24, 82)

WMND participants often expressed identity through their children’s achievements and social status:

“My son is a professor… my daughter earned an American doctorate.” (Bee, WMND-L01, 88)

A sense of belonging to home and community was important in both groups. WMID mothers often described familiar neighbourhoods as central to well-being:

“I don’t want to live in a care home. This is my own home, and I’m used to it…” (Lu, WMID-H28, 91)

WMND mothers emphasised continuity of place and family-based support, describing rural settings as familiar and secure:

“Here, air is good and security is good. Living here (countryside) is lucky. … My children and daughters-in-law are very good to me … Sometimes I visit my eldest son in XX city, but I’m not used to living there.” (Shar, WMND-C14, 86)

Overall, both WMID and WMND participants grounded identity in housing security, family relationships, and community belonging. However, WMID mothers more often expressed identity through caregiving resilience and future planning for a disabled child, whereas WMND mothers more often linked self-worth to children’s achievements.

Theme 2.3. Social support: reciprocal care and paid care

Among WMID mothers, especially those living only with a disabled child, support was often described as reciprocal. Their children provided companionship, daily help, and practical support, even where such support was partial or inconsistent:

“His brain is not good. I once asked him to buy a bottle of soy sauce, but he gave money to the shop and came back with nothing. … Now we care for each other. … He escorts me to see the doctor… We are fine living here alone.” (Yi, WMID-H24, 82)

“I’ve taken care of him for 56 years. … He is not a burden; he now takes care of me.” (Dors, WMID-S7, 86)

For WMID participants, social support came primarily from family rather than formal services. Nearly half lived in multigenerational households in which non-disabled children provided emotional and practical assistance:

“My children will take care of me; they would never let me live in a care home.” (Pow, WMID-H4, 82)

Lu likewise highlighted reassurance from both her disabled and non-disabled children:

“They [non-disabled children] come to visit me. I am very happy. … OO lives here with me until the end. … my sons and daughters-in-law are filial.” (Lu, WMID-H28, 91)

WMND participants also relied on family, but support was more often mediated through paid care:

“After my stroke, my children hired a migrant care worker… I feel well-supported.” (May, WMND-W04, 82)

Family remained central in both groups, but its form differed. WMID mothers more often described reciprocal support within co-residential relationships with their disabled children, whereas WMND mothers often relied on children who coordinated care through paid workers.

Theme 2.4. Inequality: constrained resources and differentiated care options

For WMID participants, inequality was evident in limited financial resources and housing conditions, often combined with long-term caregiving responsibilities:

“After the accident, I became disabled and need a walking stick. …We live here together—it’s simple housing, but we manage.” (Su, WMID-S19, 80)

Some relied on support from non-disabled children:

“My children support me financially… they will take care of OO when I’m gone.” (Yi, WMID-H24, 82)

At the same time, inequality within the WMID group was also evident. Wealthier families could reduce caregiving pressure by hiring migrant care workers. In one case, Show’s family employed two full-time live-in workers—one for herself and one for her daughter with intellectual disabilities:

“Caring for OO is our family responsibility. … We don’t need government resources.” (Son of Show, WMID-S20, 95)

Among WMND participants, some maintained independence through modest pensions and regular support from children, while others benefited from children with sufficient financial resources to arrange migrant care work.

Overall, inequality appeared to shape housing and care options in both groups, but its effects differed according to caregiving responsibilities.

Theme 3. Cultural meanings of institutional care and ageing in place

Across both groups, care homes were generally viewed as culturally undesirable. Participants often framed institutional care as incompatible with filial expectations:

“My children would never let me live in a care home because they are filial.” (Pow, WMID-H4, 82)

Wei likewise linked her future care expectations to family support, particularly from her daughters-in-law:

“I’m not worried about my future care plan. I have six daughters-in-law who can care for me. … Last time I was hospitalized, they all came to take care of me.” (Wei, WMID-H19, 81)

This understanding was sometimes reinforced by other family members. During one interview, Koko’s daughter-in-law stated:

“We have never thought about my mother-in-law living in a care home because she has children.” (Daughter-in-law of Koko, WMID-S13, 82)

WMND participants expressed similar views. They also associated care-home placement with a loss of dignity and believed their children would object to such a move:

“… Live in a care home? No, ... My sons would object to my going there.” (Hong, WMND-C27, 88)

In this context, ageing in place reflected not only practical preference, but also family morality, filial expectations, and culturally informed ideas of later-life care. However, sustaining this arrangement depended on available resources and support.

Theme 4. Gendered intergenerational care, inheritance, and decision-making

In Taiwanese families, sons have traditionally been recognised as primary heirs, while daughters—especially married daughters—have often been expected to prioritise their husbands’ families over their natal families (Yeh et al. 2013). At the same time, unmarried daughters frequently assumed caregiving roles but were often excluded from inheritance:

“After my husband passed, the house went to my son, and when he died, it passed to my grandson. …Now I live with my unmarried daughter, who cares for me.” (Yu, WMND-C12, 85)

Widows were also often expected to defer to their sons in decisions about care and living arrangements:

“Whether my son moves back to live with me when he retires, or I hire a migrant care worker is up to my son.” (Susu, WMND-C2, 85)

At the same time, some women described widowhood as creating space for greater personal control:

“The decision to buy this house was made by OO’s father. … We, as women, had no right to speak—men had the final word. … he’s gone now, my life is better. Nobody controls me.” (Yi, WMID-H24, 82)

“My husband had planned to move back to XX City, where he was born. I did not agree, but I didn’t dare voice my opinion. Luckily, my husband did not pursue the plan, now I don’t need to worry about moving.” (Bee, WMND-L01, 88)

Overall, inheritance and housing decisions in both groups were shaped by patrilineal expectations that privileged sons, even when daughters provided actual care (Gao 2003). However, widowhood could also create opportunities for some women to reclaim agency in later life.

Discussion

This study explored how widowed mothers aged 80 + in Taiwan, with and without adult children with intellectual disabilities, understand ageing in place at the intersection of housing, culture and gendered care. Using Clapham’s Housing Pathways framework (2002, 2010), the findings show that later-life housing is not simply a matter of residence, but a site where caregiving histories, intergenerational relations, material resources, and cultural expectations interact. The comparison highlights shared patterns alongside exploratory contrasts shaped by differing care trajectories in later life.

A central finding is that both groups preferred to remain at home, but attached different meanings to ageing in place. For widowed mothers with adult children with intellectual disabilities, remaining at home was closely tied to long-term co-residential caregiving, interdependence, and concern for the child’s future. For those with non-disabled children, it was more often associated with maintaining independence, avoiding burdening children, and, where resources allowed, supplementing family support with paid care. These findings extend existing research by showing that ageing in place is not a uniform preference, but is shaped by life-course caregiving relationships and family roles (Fast et al. 2021).

The study also extends Housing Pathways research by demonstrating how its four domains—personal control, identity, social support, and inequality—operate in advanced age. Personal control was expressed less as individual autonomy than as the ability to sustain viable housing and care arrangements. Identity was closely tied to caregiving roles, family recognition, and continuity across the life course (He 2019), alongside place attachment and homeownership (Andrews et al. 2007; Hall 2010). Social support was primarily family-based, but differed in form: reciprocal co-residential support was more evident among mothers with adult children with intellectual disabilities (Truesdale et al. 2021; Walker and Hutchinson 2019), whereas those with non-disabled children more often relied on children who coordinated care, including migrant workers (Chou et al. 2015; Liang 2023). Inequality shaped options in both groups, but was particularly evident where long-term caregiving intersected with limited income and constrained housing conditions (Chou et al. 2008; Hülür and Zimmermann 2025).

Homeownership emerged as central to stability, identity, and perceived control, even where legal ownership had been transferred to children (He 2019). Consistent with prior work, homes functioned as “spaces of wellbeing” that supported continuity, dignity, and belonging (Andrews et al. 2007; Hall 2010). For mothers of children with intellectual disabilities, homeownership was also linked to securing the child’s future, reinforcing caregiving identity and responsibility (Chou and Kröger 2022). For others, it enabled independent living while maintaining intergenerational support.

At the same time, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Ageing in place may reflect not only caregiving commitments or cultural values, but also constrained choices. Some accounts suggest economic necessity, limited formal services, and reliance on family support. Cohort effects may also matter, as participants belonged to a generation shaped by stronger expectations of family-based care and filial responsibility (Chen et al. 2022; Yeh et al. 2013). Co-residence may also partly reflect selection processes, as families with stronger intergenerational ties or fewer alternatives are more likely to remain together. Taken together, these considerations indicate that ageing in place is shaped by structural, cultural, and relational factors rather than a single determinant.

The findings also highlight the moral tension surrounding institutional care. Across both groups, care homes were often viewed as undesirable and inconsistent with filial expectations, echoing prior research in Taiwan (Wu and Chen 2014). However, this should not be interpreted as a fixed cultural rejection. Rather, attitudes towards institutional care appeared to reflect the interaction of filial piety, caregiving histories, family dynamics, and access to alternatives. Ageing in place thus emerges not only as a preference, but as a morally and materially structured pathway.

Gendered intergenerational care further shaped later-life housing decisions. Consistent with previous studies, patrilineal norms privileged sons in inheritance and decision-making, while daughters—especially unmarried daughters—often provided care without equivalent recognition (Chang 2016; Yeh et al. 2013). At the same time, some women described widowhood as opening limited space for greater personal control, complicating portrayals of older women as either dependent or fully autonomous (Davidson 2001; Ramnarain 2016). These findings point to negotiated forms of agency shaped by gender, generation, and family hierarchy.

Taken together, the study contributes in three ways. First, it integrates gerontology, disability, and housing research by showing that later-life housing decisions are embedded in caregiving histories and intergenerational dependence. Second, it extends Housing Pathways framework to advanced age by demonstrating how gender and culture intersect to reconfigure later-life housing and care. Third, it shows that ageing in place is sustained not only by preference, but also through the interaction of moral expectations, material conditions, and family care arrangement.

The policy implications should be interpreted cautiously given the qualitative and exploratory design. Rather than supporting broad conclusions, the findings point to specific areas where support may be strengthened. Older mothers with long-term caregiving responsibilities, particularly those with limited income, appear especially vulnerable, suggesting the need for more adequate income support and accessible home- and community-based services. Targeted support for ageing carers of adult children with intellectual disabilities—such as respite services, home modifications, and future care planning—may help sustain ageing in place without over-reliance on family members. More broadly, policies should recognise how gendered family relations and unequal resources shape later-life housing pathways.

Beyond Taiwan, the findings may inform research in other familialist or hybrid welfare contexts where care remains family-centred and formal support uneven. They suggest that ageing in place should be understood not only as an individual preference, but as a socially and materially structured outcome shaped by care histories, cultural norms, and welfare arrangements (Chou et al., 2026).

This study has several limitations. The purposive sample, particularly the smaller comparison group, means that cross-group contrasts should be interpreted as exploratory, and the cross-sectional design does not capture change over time. The presence of family members in some interviews may have influenced responses, and the predominance of sons among children with intellectual disabilities may have shaped observed gender dynamics. The findings are not statistically generalisable but offer contextually grounded insights with potential transferability to similar care contexts. However, the focus on Taiwan—shaped by its specific LTC system and familialist welfare context—means that broader claims for East Asia should be interpreted cautiously: while some findings may resonate with societies influenced by filial piety, others are likely to be context-specific.

Future research could examine how housing and care pathways evolve over time, include widowed mothers living in care homes, and explore similar dynamics across different welfare and cultural contexts. Further work could also investigate how cohort, rurality, and service access shape the feasibility and meanings of ageing in place in very late life.

Conclusion

This study contributes to cultural and geographical gerontology, LTC policy, and disability studies by showing how widowed mothers aged 80 + in Taiwan construct ageing-in-place pathways at the intersection of housing and care. While both groups valued attachment to home, family, and community, their housing pathways differed. Mothers of adult children with intellectual disabilities more often framed ageing in place through long-term co-residential caregiving and interdependence, whereas those with non-disabled children emphasised maintaining personal control, supported by family and, in some cases, migrant care workers. Across both groups, remaining at home carried both moral and practical meaning.

By integrating gerontology, disability, and housing perspectives, the study shows that later-life housing decisions are shaped not only by preference, but also by caregiving histories, gendered family relations, unequal resources, and culturally embedded expectations of support. These findings highlight the need for policies and services that better support older women with differing care trajectories, particularly those facing financial constraints and limited access to formal care.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 41 KB) (40.7KB, docx)
Supplementary file2 (DOCX 22 KB) (21.7KB, docx)

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the participants who have generously given their time to our research. Special thanks to Professor Sharon Pugh for her help in editing the manuscript. We also thank the editor and the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions.

Author contribution

YCC conceptualized and designed the study, collected and analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. BWC contributed to writing and editing the manuscript. TK assisted in revising the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Funding

National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan, NSTC 114-2423-H-468-001; Research Council of Finland, CoE AgeCare 352735.

Data availability

The data that has been used is confidential.

Declarations

Ethical approval

This research project was approved by the Research Ethics Board at the National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University (IRB: YM103016F).

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Abrahamson P (2017) East Asian welfare regime: obsolete ideal-type or diversified reality. J Asian Public Policy 10(1):90–103. 10.1080/17516234.2016.1258524 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Agree EM, Glaser K (2009) Demography of Informal Caregiving. In: Uhlenberg P (eds) International Handbook of Population Aging. International Handbooks of Population 1. Springer, Dordrecht. 10.1007/978-1-4020-8356-3_29 [DOI]
  3. Andrews GJ, Cutchin M, McCracken K, Phillips DR, Wiles J (2007) Geographical gerontology: the constitution of a discipline. Soc Sci Med 65(1):151–168. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.02.047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Aspalter C (2006) The East Asian welfare model. Int J Soc Welf 15(4):290–301. 10.1111/j.1468-2397.2006.00413.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Baumbusch J, Mayer S, Phinney A, Baumbusch S (2017) Aging together: caring relations in families of adults with intellectual disabilities. Gerontologist 57(2):341–347. 10.1093/geront/gnv103 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bennett KM, Soulsby LK (2012) Wellbeing in bereavement and widowhood. Illn Crisis Loss 20(4):321–337. 10.2190/IL.20.4.b [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Burns SD, Crimmins EM, Zhang M, Ailshire JA (2024) Psychosocial well-being differences between the young old, old-old, and oldest old: a global comparison. J Aging Health 37(7–8):453–467. 10.1177/08982643241264587 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Carr D, Utz R (2001) Late-life widowhood in the United States: new directions in research and theory. Ageing Int 27(1):65–88. 10.1007/s12126-001-1016-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chang HF (2016) Taiwan family stories and studies of Chinese culture: a case study of Taiwan island story. Master’s thesis. Fo Guang University, Yilan, Taiwan
  11. Chen SM, Lin PS (2010) The influence of financial support and physical care between the two generations of parents and children on living arrangements and life satisfaction. J Hous Stud 19(1):29–58. 10.6375/JHS.201006.0029 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chen BW, Chou YC, Chi HC (2022) Unpacking the cultural paradox of attentive care for institutionalized people with intellectual disabilities. Health Place 78(1):102821. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2022.102821 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chou YC, Kröger T (2022) Ageing in place together: older parents and ageing offspring with intellectual disability. Ageing Soc 42(2):480–494. 10.1017/S0144686X20001038 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chou YC, Lee YC, Lin LC, Chang AN, Huang WY (2008) Social services utilization by adults with intellectual disabilities and their families. Soc Sci Med 66(12):2474–2485. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.01.055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Chou YC, Kröger T, Pu CY (2015) Models of long-term care use among older people with disabilities in Taiwan: institutional care, community care, live-in migrant care and family care. Eur J Ageing 12(2):95–104. 10.1007/s10433-014-0322-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Chou YC, Puthenparambil JM, Kröger T, Pu C (2024) Multidimensional care poverty among East Asian and Nordic older adults. Innov Aging 8(9):igae076. 10.1093/geroni/igae076 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Chou Y-C, Jolanki O, Chen BW (2026) Aging in place or relocating? Older adults’ housing decisions in Taiwan and Finland. Gerontologist 66(1):gnaf257. 10.1093/geront/gnaf257 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Clapham D (2002) Housing pathways: a post modern analytical framework. Housing Theory Soc 19(2):57–68. 10.1080/140360902760385565 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Clapham D (2010) Happiness, well-being and housing policy. Policy Polit 38(2):253–267. 10.1332/030557310X488457 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Clapham D, Mackie P, Orford S, Thomas I, Buckley K (2014) The housing pathways of young people in the UK. Environ Plann A 46(8):2016–2031. 10.1068/a46273 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Davidson K (2001) Late life widowhood, selfishness and new partnership choices: a gendered perspective. Ageing Soc 21(3):297–317. 10.1017/S0144686X01008169 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Fast J, Keating N, Eales J, Kim C, Lee Y (2021) Trajectories of family care over the lifecourse: evidence from Canada. Ageing Soc 41(5):1145–1162. 10.1017/S0144686X19001806 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Forsyth A, Molinsky J (2021) What is aging in place? confusions and contradictions. Hous Policy Debate 31(2):181–196. 10.1080/10511482.2020.1793795 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gao X (2003) Women existing for men: Confucianism and social injustice against women in China. Race, Gender & Class 10(3):114–125. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41675091
  25. Gardiner C, Laud P, Heaton T, Gott M (2020) What is the prevalence of loneliness amongst older people living in residential and nursing care homes? a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing 49(5):748–757. 10.1093/ageing/afaa049 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hall E (2010) Spaces of wellbeing for people with learning disabilities. Scott Geogr J 126(4):275–284. 10.1080/14702541.2010.549343 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. He YM (2019) Ancient Chinese agricultural civilization. Chung-Hwa Book Company, HK. ISBN: 9888573586 [in Chinese]
  28. Hu B (2020) Trajectories of informal care intensity among the oldest-old Chinese. Soc Sci Med 266:113338. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113338 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hu B, Chou Y-C (2022) Care poverty among older people in East Asia: a comparison of unmet care needs between China and Taiwan. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 102:104738. 10.1016/j.archger.2022.104738 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hülür G, Zimmermann J (2025) The role of individual and environmental socio-economic resources for cognitive change in very old age. Soc Sci Med 364:117544. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117544 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Liang LF (2023) Managing work and care: does employing a live-in migrant care worker fill the gap? the example of Taiwan. Soc Policy Soc 22(4):581–593. 10.1017/S1474746421000233 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Ness TM, Hellzen O, Enmarker I (2014) Embracing the present and fearing the future: the meaning of being an oldest old woman in a rural area. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-Being 9:25217. 10.3402/qhw.v9.25217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Pani-Harreman KE, Bours GJ, Zander I, Kempen GI, van Duren JM (2021) Definitions, key themes and aspects of ‘ageing in place’: a scoping review. Ageing Soc 41(9):2026–2059. 10.1017/S0144686X20000094 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Pinquart M, Sörensen S (2006) Gender differences in caregiver stressors, social resources, and health: an updated meta-analysis. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 61(1):33–45. 10.1093/geronb/61.1.P33 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Ramnarain S (2016) Unpacking widow headship and agency in post-conflict Nepal. Fem Econ 22(1):80–105. 10.1080/13545701.2015.1075657 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Ryan A, Taggart L, Truesdale-Kennedy M, Slevin E (2014) Issues in caregiving for older people with intellectual disabilities and their ageing family carers: a review and commentary. Int J Older People Nurs 9(3):217–226. 10.1111/opn.12021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Seltzer MM, Floyd F, Song J, Greenberg J, Hong J (2011) Midlife and aging parents of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities: impacts of lifelong parenting. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil 116(6):479–499. 10.1352/1944-7558-116.6.479 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Silverstein M, Giarrusso R (2010) Aging and family life: a decade review. J Marriage Fam 72:1039–1058. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00749.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Skinner MW, Cloutier D, Andrews GJ (2015) Geographies of ageing: progress and possibilities after two decades of change. Prog Hum Geogr 39(6):776–799. 10.1177/0309132514558444 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Smith C, Tomassini C, Smallwood S, Hawkins M (2005) The changing age structure of the UK population. In: Chappell R (ed) Focus on People and Migration. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London, pp 61–69 [Google Scholar]
  41. Strauss AL, Corbin JM (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed. Sage [Google Scholar]
  42. Timmermans S, Tavory I (2012) Theory construction in qualitative research: from grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociol Theor 30(3):167–186. 10.1177/0735275112457914 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Truesdale M, Taggart L, Ryan A, McConkey R (2021) Experiences of reciprocal caring among adults with an intellectual disability caring for an older family member. J Policy Pract Intellect Disabil 18(3):240–248. 10.1111/jppi.12380 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Walker R, Hutchinson C (2019) Care-giving dynamics and futures planning among ageing parents of adult offspring with intellectual disability. Ageing Soc 39(7):1512–1527. 10.1017/S0144686X18000144 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Weeks LE, Nilsson T, Bryanton O, Kozma A (2009) Current and future concerns of older parents of sons and daughters with intellectual disabilities. J Policy Pract Intellect Disabil 6(3):180–188. 10.1111/j.1741-1130.2009.00222.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Willis P, Trondman M (2000) Manifesto for ethnography. Ethnography 1(1):5–16 [Google Scholar]
  47. Wu CH, Chen YM (2014) The experiences of hiring foreign caregivers among families with demented elderly person. The Journal of Long-Term Care 18(1):95–112. 10.6317/LTC.18.95[inChinese] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Yarker S, Doran P, Buffel T (2024) Theorizing place in aging in place: the need for territorial and relational perspectives. Gerontologist 64(2):gnad002. 10.1093/geront/gnad002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Yeh KH, Yi CC, Tsao WC, Wan PS (2013) Filial piety in contemporary Chinese societies: a comparative study of Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China. Int Sociol 28(3):277–296. 10.1177/026858091348434 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Zeng Y, Vaupel JW, Xiao Z, Zhang C, Liu Y (2002) Sociodemographic and health profiles of the oldest old in China. Popul Dev Rev 28(2):251–273. 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2002.00251.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 41 KB) (40.7KB, docx)
Supplementary file2 (DOCX 22 KB) (21.7KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The data that has been used is confidential.

Articles from European Journal of Ageing are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES