本篇論文是在探討婚姻狀態對台灣老人健康的實證分析，本研究是以壽命長短作為老人健康與否的指標，並以性別、教育程度、生活習慣、重大及慢性疾病，再加上本文討論之重點---婚姻狀態當作自變數，並利用存活時間機率的觀念，進行Cox比例危險模型( Cox proportional hazards model)的實證分析。由於各項婚姻狀態中，除了喪偶不法選擇之外，其他的婚姻狀態皆有自我選擇(self-section)之虞，但又無法從資料中區分出受訪者是否有自我選擇的情況，故估計結果有內生性的問題。
本研究的實證結果發現，不論性別為何，從失婚的狀態轉變成有偶或同居的老人，都會比一直維持失婚狀態的老人來的健康，其之間的差異尤以男性為最；對於一開始有偶或同居的老人女性，在婚姻狀態轉變成失婚後，對健康的影響卻與一直維持有偶或同居的女性無異，而男性老人則是在有偶或同居轉變成失婚後，健康狀態就會變差。因此本文建議政府或相關單位在面對老人問題時，對於獨居老人尤其是男性，需要特別注意其健康、生活起居方面的狀況；且可嘗試鼓勵失婚的老人找尋老伴，若情況許可甚至可選擇再婚，如此一來較能解決失婚無人照料的窘境，並能降低死亡的危險率。

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between all kinds of married state and health for the elderly. Based on the year of 1989, 1993, 1996, 1999, and 2003 Survey of Health and Living Status of the Elderly in Taiwan, we applied Cox proportional hazards model to our study. At first, we investigate if there is the different health between married, widow/widower, divorced, separated, and always single; the second, we compared two kinds of elder’s health— keep the unmarried state from 1989-2003 and from unmarried to get married during 1989-2003; the third, we still compared two kinds of elder’s health— keep the married from 1989-2003 and from married to unmarried during 1989-2003.
Because all kinds of married states, except widow/widower, have self-selection problem, we cannot judge this problem from the survey. So the finally estimation has endogeneity problem, we cannot avoid it. Findings show that the elderly translate married state from single to get married is healthier than always keep single ones, and the females’ health don’t change when their married state from married to single, but males’ become worse.

參考文獻
<中文文獻>
1.「中華民國九十四年老人狀況調查報告」，內政部，民國九十四年。
2.陳惠真＆王香蘋(2005)，台灣老人健康狀況初探：1989年至1999年，刊登於台灣家醫誌；14：25-35。
<英文文獻>
1. Becker, G. S., R. T. Michael, and E. M. Landes. (1997), “An Economic Analysis of Marital Instability.” Journal of Political Economy, Vol.85, No.6, 1153-89.
2. Hahn, A. B. (1993), “Marital Status and Women’s Health: The Effect of Economic Marital Acquisitions.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol.55, No.2, 495-504.
3. Bianchi, S., and Spaon, D. (1986). American Women in Transition. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
4. Cox, D. R. (1992), “Regression Models and Life-Tables.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological), Vol.34, 187-220.
5. Cox, D. R., and Oakes D. (1984), “Analysis of Survival Data.” Chapman and Hall: London.
6. Ellen, K., James, L., and Yelena, G. (2007). “Trends in the Health of Older Americans, 1970-2005.” Health Affairs, Vol.26, No.5, 1417-1425.
7. Hemminki, K., and Li, X. (2003). “Hip Fractures Among Older People: Do Marital Status and Type of Residence Matter?” Public Health, Vol.117, 196-201.
8. Hewitt, B., Turrell, G., Baxter, J. and Wetern, M. (2006), “Marriage Dissolution and Health Amongst the Elderly: The Role of Social and Economic Resources.”, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Unpublished Mimeo.
9. Helsing, K., Szklo, M., and Comstock, G. (1981), “Factors Associated with Mortality After Widowhood.” American Journal of Public Health, Vol.71, No.8, 802-809.
10. Waldron, I., Hughes, E. M., and Brooks, L. T. (1996). “Marriage Protection and Marriage Selection-Prospective Evidence for Reciprocal Effects of Marital Status and Health.” Social Science & Medicine, Vol.43, No.1, 113-123.
11. James, P. S., and Raynard, K. (1997). “Demographic and Economic Correlates of Health in Old Age.” Demography, Vol.34, No.1, The Demography of Age, 159-170.
12. Javier, E., and William, N. E. (2008), “Heightened Mortality After the Death of A Spouse: Marriage Protection or Marriage Selection?” Journal of Health Economics, Vol.7, 1326-1342.
13. Lusyne, P., Page, H., and Livevns, J. (2001), “Mortality Following Conjugal Bereavement, Belgium 1991-96: The Unexpected Effect of Education.” Population Studies (Cambridge), Vol.55, 281-289.