Loneliness, social support, social isolation and wellbeing among working age adults with and without disability: Cross-sectional study

Abstract

Background Loneliness is significantly related to health and wellbeing. However, there is little information on the prevalence of loneliness among people with disability or the association between disability, loneliness and wellbeing. Objective/hypothesis For a nationally representative sample of adults (age 16–64) with/without disability, to examine exposure to three indicators of low social connectedness (loneliness, low perceived social support, social isolation), and to evaluate the association between low social connectedness and wellbeing. To test whether disability status moderated the relationship between low social connectedness and wellbeing. Methods Secondary analysis of data from three annual rounds of the cross-sectional English Community Life Survey (CLS) 2016–19. Results People with disability experienced loneliness, low perceived social support and social isolation at significantly higher rates than people without disability. Effect sizes were significantly greater for loneliness. Disability was associated with lower wellbeing. With one exception, low social connectedness was associated with lower wellbeing. Again, effect sizes were significantly greater for loneliness. The prevalence of loneliness was highest among adults with disability who were younger, economically inactive, living in rented or other accommodation, living alone and with low levels of access to environmental assets. There was no evidence that disability status moderated the association between exposure to low social connectedness and low wellbeing. Conclusions Loneliness was a particularly significant driver of poor wellbeing among people with disability. The relative independence between different indicators of social connectedness suggests that interventions to reduce loneliness will need to do more than simply increase rates of social contact or social support.

Psychological Well-Being, Marital Satisfaction, and Parental Burnout in Iranian Parents: The Effect of Home Quarantine During COVID-19 Outbreaks

“…Such psychological reactions due to the decline of social relations are more evident in traditional cultures; researchers have shown that decreased emotional contact and feelings of connection with family and friends are associated with symptoms of distress and depression in African-Americans ( Taylor et al, 2016 , 2020 ). Recent studies have shown that social distancing by creating a sense of loneliness, anxiety, suicide ideations ( Armbruster and Klotzbücher, 2020 ), low perception of social support, and an inability to connect with others is associated with low well-being and low sense of social connectedness ( Emerson et al, 2020 ; Garcia et al, 2020 ). In addition to the personal effects of the lockdown, home quarantine and social distancing challenged the value and the cost of relationships with others.…”

Typologies of Loneliness, Isolation and Living Alone Are Associated with Psychological Well-Being among Older Adults in Taipei: A Cross-Sectional Study

“…Past studies have explored the relationship of loneliness, isolation and living alone on the health and well-being of older people. LIL may cause depression, cardiovascular disease, reduced quality of life, low self-rated health, anxiety, reduced cognitive or physical function, frailty, insomnia, mortality, suicide, and work disability in older adults [ 1 , 3 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]. Such negative effects may be worse for individuals with lower education, lower income, and disability [ 16 ].…”

“…The factors related to LIL can be viewed by individual level (demographics, health and psychological characteristics), interpersonal level (family relationship and marital status), and society level (culture, social environment and age friendliness). The factors include age, sex, race, education, socioeconomic status, marital status or widowhood, working status, having children or not, social relationship with friends and neighbors, social anxiety, Internet use, self-rated health, disability, resilience, previous depression, and built environment [ 10 , 21 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ]. In addition, social participation [ 44 ], activity engagement [ 45 ], bonding social capital [ 46 ], and religious belief or spirituality [ 47 , 48 ] may also be protective factors.…”

Touch in times of COVID‐19: Touch hunger hurts

“…The no‐touch guidelines not only made it difficult to diagnose a patient without touching them (Siekmans et al., 2017), but the isolation faced by Ebola patients was found to compromise the nurses’ ability to convey connection and provide comfort to patients in times of distress (Connor, 2015). Such measures, while intended to keep people safe, have concerning short‐ and longer‐term implications on the health of already isolated individuals such as people who are ill, older people (Armitage & Nellums, 2020) and people with disabilities (Emerson, Fortune, Llewellyn, & Stancliffe, 2020).…”