Loneliness has become an issue of significant academic, public and policy focus. There has been much research on experiences of loneliness in later life and many accompanying interventions targeting lonely older people. However, there has been a dearth of research on the impact that loneliness can have on older men and the resulting implications for policy and practice. This paper aims to redress this by developing a theoretical framework to improve understanding of older men's constructions and experiences of loneliness. It draws on two qualitative empirical studies: the first explores older men's perceptions of masculinity and loneliness; and the second looks at the effectiveness of a service for older men which was designed to alleviate loneliness among older people more generally. The paper outlines the way in which older men often construct masculinity as an oppressive (hegemonic) requirement, but which can be reformed into ‘positive’ traits of ‘strength of mind’, ‘responsibility’, ‘caring’, ‘helping out’, ‘doing a favour’ and ‘giving something back’, with a consistent yet implicit assumption that enactment of these denotes a ‘proud’ masculine identity. Loneliness, on the other hand, is represented as a subordinate social role, both non-masculine and related to marginalising stereotypes of age. This results in the identification of two important implications for the way in which services can assist in the alleviation of loneliness in older men: that men are more likely to engage with a service that can facilitate the construction of a ‘proud’ masculine identity; and that services which deconstruct hegemonic masculinities, particularly by providing a space where men feel comfortable being emotionally tactile, are likely to be most effective at both alleviating loneliness and promoting overall wellbeing.
Since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, the UK, like many countries, has had restrictions on social contact, and injunctions of 'social distancing'. This study aimed to generate new insights into men's experiences of loneliness during the pandemic, and consider the ramifications of these for continued/future restrictions, the easing of restrictions, and the future beyond the pandemic. Twenty qualitative interviews were conducted with men between January and March 2021. A maximum variation purpose sample frame required at least three non-white men, three LGBTQ+men, three men with a university education, three without a university education, three 18-30 years old, and three aged 60+. Thematic analysis, focused on semantic themes, was employed as part of a 'grounded' epistemology whereby the stated perspectives of the interviewees drove the content of the study. Seven themes were constructed:(i) lost and new activities and routines; (ii) remote social interaction; (iii) narrowed social spheres; (iv) rethought and renewed recognition of what is important; (v) loneliness with a purpose; (vi) anxiety of social contact; and (vii) easier for themselves than others. Lost routines, fewer meaningful activities, and a reduction in face-to-face interaction, were framed as challenges to preventing loneliness. Solo-living gay men seemed particularly negatively affected. However, many men displayed new, more covid-safe routines and activities. Remote forms of interaction were often utilised, and though they were imperfect, were constructed as worth engaging with, and held capacity for improvement. A moral need to reduce transmission of SARS-COV-2, and a fear of catching it, became important features of participants lives that also affected loneliness. Men at higher risk of health complications from Covid-19 were particularly likely to highlight anxiety of social contact. Reducing restrictions alone may not return everyone to pre-pandemic levels of loneliness, particularly if the pandemic remains a significant public health issue.
BackgroundLoneliness has received considerable attention in recent years, but has seldom been investigated through a gendered lens. This review aims to critically summarise research substantively related to men and loneliness.MethodA critical interpretive synthesis, incorporating a pre-defined search strategy, was employed to analyse a broad variety of data. The searches were conducted in July 2019, across seven databases: MEDLINE; PsycINFO; Scopus, ASSIA, SSCI; Sociological Abstracts; and Social Policy and Practice. Included studies were written in English, conducted in high income nations in Western Europe, North America, and Australasia, with no date limitations. Qualitative studies required a substantive focus on sex/men or gender/masculinities and loneliness, and quantitative studies either an explicit focus on sex differences in loneliness, or data substantially relevant to loneliness and men. Seventy-nine studies met the inclusion criteria.ResultsSeven ‘synthetic constructs’ were built: i) men’s loneliness appears more associated with their social network; ii) men may be less emotionally forthright, thus both less inclined to discuss loneliness and less likely to form meaningful relationships; iii) romantic relationships may be more important for preventing loneliness in men; iv) different measurements of loneliness do not show the same sex differences in the prevalence of loneliness; v) lonely men may be more likely to engage in risky/unhealthy behaviour; vi) feeling/being ‘insufficiently masculine’ can result in loneliness; and vii) intersections of identity facilitate different gendered results.ConclusionThese constructs offer a framework that can help inform interventions aimed at preventing/alleviating loneliness in men, and a foundation for future research. Overcoming men’s emotional reticence, and facilitating better quality social networks, appeared critical goals for interventions. Men’s emotional reticence may constitute both a barrier to discussing loneliness, and to forming loneliness preventing relationships. It also appeared to be characterised either by the construction of a masculine persona, or a fear of the repercussions for initiating intimate conversation. When attempting to ascertain whether a man is lonely, acknowledging gendered variation in survey responses is required. However, it is unclear how generalisable these ‘synthetic constructs’ are, and their potential inter-relatedness requires further research.
‘The views of representatives from… Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs) in England were sought on the challenges to safeguarding children from FII’The fabrication or induction of illness (FII) is a relatively rare situation which can lead to serious physical and/or emotional harm to a child. FII is often difficult for professionals to identify and manage. In this study the views of representatives from the 147 Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs) in England were sought on the challenges to safeguarding children from FII, and how these might be overcome. Despite a low response rate of only 18 from the 147 LSCBs, 17 challenges were identified. The most reported were inadequate training and resources, poor multi‐agency collaboration, uncertainties and anxiety among professionals tasked with identifying FII, issues inherent in the relative rarity of FII and the variety of ways in which it can present. To overcome these challenges, LSCB respondents suggested that more training, specific to particular professions and using video case studies where possible, should be conducted on a wider scale, and consideration should be given to ensuring that professionals are familiar with relevant guidance.Key Practitioner Messages Professionals' uncertainties and anxieties are key challenges to safeguarding children from FII. More training would help overcome professionals' uncertainties and anxieties. Finding ways to ensure that all relevant professionals are familiar with existing guidance would support the development of greater knowledge about how best to respond to FII cases. The inclusion of FII within broader safeguarding training, using video case studies and conducting profession‐specific training, may constitute ways to improve training and promote knowledge of the guidance.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.