Emotional/ informational Overall Female speciﬁc Male speciﬁc Sex interaction† Tangible Overall Female speciﬁc Male speciﬁc Sex interaction† Aﬀectionate Overall Female speciﬁc Male speciﬁc Sex interaction† Positive social interaction All Female Male Interaction Overall Overall Female speciﬁc Male speciﬁc Sex interaction† n 217 219 219 216 212 .99 (.98,1.02) 1.12 (.79,1.59) .70 (.52,.93) 1.58 (1.01,2.49) 1.00 (.99,1.01) 1.22 (.86,1.72) .80 (.59,1.06) 1.52 (.97,2.40) 1.00 (.99,1.01) 1.37 (.91,2.05) .76 (.59,0.98) 1.78 (1.10,2.87) 1.00 (1.00,1.01) 1.20 (.86,1.69) .78 (.61,1.00) 1.53 (1.01,2.32) 1.00 (.99,1.01) 1.28 (.84,1.95) .76 (.57,1.02) 1.68 (1.01,2.80) n 428 428 426 418 432 .99 (.99,1.00) .97 (.76,1.24) .79 (.64,.96) 1.24 (.90,1.70) 1.00 (.99,1.00) 1.06 (.86,1.32) .86 (.71,1.04) 1.24 (.93,1.65) 1.00 (.99,1.00) 1.18 (.93,1.50) .82 (.69,.99) 1.43 (1.06,1.94) .99 (.99,1.01) .99 (.80,1.22) .82 (.69,.97) 1.20 (.91,1.58) 1.00 (.98,1.01) 1.04 (.80,1.36) .81 (.66,1.00) 1.28 (.92,1.79) Emotional/ informational Overall Female speciﬁc Male speciﬁc Sex interaction† Tangible Overall Female speciﬁc Male speciﬁc Sex interaction† Aﬀectionate Overall Female speciﬁc Male speciﬁc Sex interaction† Positive social interaction Overall Female speciﬁc Male speciﬁc Sex interaction† Overall Overall Female speciﬁc Male speciﬁc Sex interaction† n 269 269 265 260 271 1.00 (.99,1.01) 1.08 (.78,1.50) .83 (.66,1.05) 1.28 (.86,1.90) 1.00 (.99,1.01) 0.99 (.75,1.31) 0.95 (.73,1.23) 1.03 (.71,1.51) 0.99 (.99,1.00) 1.00 (.73,1.37) .75 (.59, .96) 1.31 (.88,1.95) .99 (.99,1.00) .99 (.75,1.29) .82 (.73,1.10) 1.20 (.85,1.70) 1.00 (.99,1.01) .97 (.69,1.37) .87 (.67,1.12) 1.11 (.73,1.71) n 428 428 426 418 432 .99 (.98,1.00) .91 (.71,1.16) .78 (.65,.98) 1.14 (.83,1.57) .99 (.99,1.00) .95 (.77,1.18) .82 (.67,1.00) 1.16 (.87,1.56) 1.00 (.99,1.01) 1.08 (.85,1.37) .80 (.66, .97) 1.34 (.99,1.82) .99 (.99,1.00) .98 (.79,1.21) .79 (.66,.94) 1.24 (.94,1.64) .99 (.98,.99) .96 (.74,1.25) .74 (.59,.92) 1.30 (.92,1.84) 8 Cardiology Research and Practice Table 5: Inﬂuence of social support on decline in SF-12-PCS. Table 6: Inﬂuence of social support on decline in KCCQ PL score. Missing data excluded Missing data included Missing data excluded Missing data included OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) ∗OR (95% CI): odds ratios with 95% conﬁdence intervals estimated by multiple logistic regression adjusting for age and sex. Each social support domain is modelled separately. The ORs estimate the multiplicative increase in the odds of a MCID decline in PCS per 20-point increase in the social support score. An OR < 1 indicates a protective eﬀect of social support. ORs statistically signiﬁcant at P < .05 are in bold font. †The sex interaction is the female-speciﬁc OR divided by the male-speciﬁc OR. An interaction OR > 1 indicates a greater protective eﬀect of social support for males than females. ∗OR (95% CI): odds ratios with 95% conﬁdence intervals estimated by multiple logistic regression adjusting for age and sex. Each social support domain is modelled separately. The ORs estimate the multiplicative increase in the odds of a MCID decline in PL per 20-point increase in the social support score. An OR < 1 indicates a protective eﬀect of social support. ORs statistically signiﬁcant at P < .05 are in bold font. †The sex interaction is the female speciﬁc OR divided by the male-speciﬁc OR. An interaction OR > 1 indicates a greater protective eﬀect of social support for males than females. were similar to that which we saw when the lost-to-followup group was excluded from the analysis. This would suggest that the relationships we found in a relatively stable HF sample could be an underestimate of the pattern in a more compromised sample. 8. Conclusions This study reports on the gender diﬀerences in social support and its corresponding relationship to both general and disease-speciﬁc adverse functional outcomes in the HF population. The results indicate that older women report less available social support and worse physical functioning both in relation to their general health and HF. In addition, the relationship between social support and adverse functional outcomes is seemingly moderated by gender in this cohort, with men less likely to experience a decline in their health outcomes with more perceived social support. This was not the case for women. These results also show that although women report less social support than men, social support may have less of a direct inﬂuence on health outcomes and physical function and that other supportive resources such as self-care capacity and availability of formal health care supports may have a stronger impact on physical function for women. Our ﬁndings support the need for gender-sensitive care for older HF patients and further research into the complex interactions between gender, supportive resources, and functional maintenance within the context of a chronic disabling condition such as HF.