Regional variation in social isolation amongst older Australians

Beer, Andrew; Faulkner, Debbie; Law, Julia; Lewin, Gill; Tinker, Anthea; Buys, Laurie; Bentley, Rebecca; Watt, Amber M.; McKechnie, Sue; Chessman, Susan

doi:10.1080/21681376.2016.1144481

Cited by 30 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They used a single item from the CES-D which asks about loneliness in the last week and concluded that there was no difference in loneliness prevalence between rural (9%) and urban (10%) areas. Using a national sample of older adults being assessed for care services in New Zealand, Beer and colleagues report higher crude levels of loneliness in urban (21.6%) than rural (19.8%) areas and this difference remained significant after adjustment for socio-economic status, living alone, carer stress and relationship stress [34]. Havens and Hall (2004) compared loneliness among older (aged 72+) Manitobans and reported that, using a customised measure (derived from existing de Jong Gierveld scale and two single-item questions used elsewhere), 47% of rural and 43% of urban Manitobans were lonely [33].…”

Section: Factors Related To Loneliness In Later Lifementioning

confidence: 99%

Lonely places or lonely people? Investigating the relationship between loneliness and place of residence

Victor¹,

Pikhartova

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Loneliness in later life is largely presented as a problem of the individual focusing upon antecedents of loneliness such as demographic or health factors. Research examining the role of the broader living environments is rarer. We examined the relationship between loneliness and three elements of the lived environment: geographical region, deprivation, and area classification (urban or rural). Methods: Our sample consisted of 4,663 core members (44% males) aged 50+ (base wave mean age 65.5, S.D=.7.9) present in waves 3 (2008) and 7 (2014) of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) which both included questions about individual-based and area-based loneliness. Loneliness was measured using two approaches- the three item University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) scale (ranging from 3 =not lonely to 9= lonely and using cut off at level 6+ marking loneliness) which assessed individual-based (self-reported) loneliness, and a novel self-rated evaluation by participants of how often they felt lonely in their area of residence (area-based; ranging from 1=often to 7=never, using cut off 4+). The lived environment was classified in three different ways: the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), Government Office Regions (GOR), and as urban or rural. Covariates with established relationship with loneliness including demographic factors, social engagement and health, were included in the analyses. Results: In wave 7, individual-based loneliness was reported by 18% and area-based loneliness by 25% of participants. There was limited congruence between measures: 68% participants reported no individual- or area-based loneliness and 9% reported loneliness in both areas. Adjusting for individual co-variates, a significant association was observed only for the association between area-based loneliness and deprivation measure area characteristic, with higher levels of loneliness in more deprived areas (OR=1.4 for highest quintile of deprivation). No other significant relationships were observed regarding other types of area characteristics. Conclusions: Our results indicate that loneliness in older adults is higher in the most deprived areas independent of individual-level factors. In order to develop appropriate interventions further research is required to investigate how area-level factors combine with individual-level loneliness vulnerability measures to generate increased levels of loneliness in deprived areas.

show abstract

Section: Factors Related To Loneliness In Later Lifementioning

confidence: 99%

Lonely places or lonely people? Investigating the relationship between loneliness and place of residence

Victor¹,

Pikhartova

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From Australian studies of time use, older people spend on average 40% of their time alone which increases with age and with chronic illness (McKenna, Broome & Liddle, ). Numbers of older Australians living alone are expected to increase as Baby boomers age due to lower marriage rates, higher divorce rates and a preference for privacy and independence (Beer et al .). Given the increasing numbers of older people the importance of occupational therapists having a sophisticated understanding of time spent alone is growing in order to enable older people to age well.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While ageing in place supports older people to remain at home conversely it can increase time spent alone and social isolation (Beer et al, 2016;Horner & Boldy, 2008), and a reduced quality of life (Tomaka, Thomson & Palacios, 2006). From Australian studies of time use, older people spend on average 40% of their time alone which increases with age and with chronic illness (McKenna, Broome & Liddle, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Older peoples’ perspectives on time spent alone

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At a national level, Menec and colleagues evaluated the distribution of loneliness across Canada, using a single item from the CES-D asking about loneliness in the last week and reported similar loneliness prevalence in rural (9%) and urban (10%) areas [34]. Using a national sample of older adults being assessed for care services in New Zealand, Beer and colleagues report higher crude levels of loneliness in urban (21.6%) than rural (19.8%) areas which remained significant after adjustment for socio-economic status, living alone, carer stress and relationship stress [36]. Havens and Hall (2004) compared loneliness among older (aged 72+) Manitobans using a customised measure (derived from the de Jong Gierveld scale and two single-item questions used elsewhere) ,and reported loneliness prevalence of 47% (rural) and 43% (urban) [35].…”

Section: The Geography Of Lonelinessmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Cross-sectional data from Ireland reports crude mean UCLA loneliness scores that are the same for urban and rural areas (mean of 4.1, range 3-9) but posit that rurality played a role in the complex pathway to loneliness for older adults. [36]. Given the limited and inconsistent empirical evidence we sought to examine the relationship between loneliness and three distinct types of geographical area: deprivation, geographical region, and area typology (urban or rural) among older people living in England.…”

Section: The Geography Of Lonelinessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lonely places or lonely people? Investigating the relationship between loneliness and place of residence

Victor¹,

Pikhartova

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Loneliness in later life is largely presented as a problem of the individual focusing upon antecedents such as demographic or health factors. Research examining the role of the broader living environments is much rarer. We examined the relationship between loneliness and three dimensions of the lived environment: geographical region, deprivation, and area classification (urban or rural). Methods: Our sample consisted of 4,663 core members (44% males) aged 50+ (wave 7 mean age 72.8, S.D.= 7.1) present both in waves 3 (2006) and 7 (2014) of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). Loneliness was measured using two approaches, individual and area-based, and both waves included these questions. Individual-based (self-reported) loneliness was assessed using the three item University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) scale (ranging from 3 =not lonely to 9= lonely with a score of 6+ defining loneliness. We also used a novel question which asked participants to evaluate how often they felt lonely in their area of residence (area-based; ranging from 1=often to 7=never, using cut off 4+ to define loneliness). The lived environment was classified in three different ways: the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), Government Office Regions (GOR), and area classification (urban or rural). Covariates with established relationship with loneliness including demographic factors, social engagement and health, were included in the analyses. Results: In wave 7, the prevalence of individual-based loneliness was 18% and area-based was 25%. There was limited congruence between measures: 68% participants reported no individual- or area-based loneliness and 9% reported loneliness for both measures. After adjusting for individual co-variates only one significant relationship was observed between loneliness and area -based characteristics. A significant association was observed between area-based loneliness and deprivation score, with higher levels of loneliness in more deprived areas (OR=1.4 for highest quintile of deprivation). Conclusions: Our results indicate that loneliness in older adults is higher in the most deprived areas independent of individual-level factors. In order to develop appropriate interventions further research is required to investigate how area-level factors combine with individual-level loneliness vulnerability measures to generate increased levels of loneliness in deprived areas.

show abstract

Regional variation in social isolation amongst older Australians

Cited by 30 publications

References 44 publications

Lonely places or lonely people? Investigating the relationship between loneliness and place of residence

Lonely places or lonely people? Investigating the relationship between loneliness and place of residence

Older peoples’ perspectives on time spent alone

Lonely places or lonely people? Investigating the relationship between loneliness and place of residence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About