Always alone? Network transitions among detached older Europeans and their effects

Abstract

The present study investigated the changes that occurred within the interpersonal environments of a sample of socially isolated older Europeans after four years. Based upon data from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), the inquiry looked at 834 older people who were socially detached at baseline, at follow-up or at both time-points. The analysis traced changes in relation to the social network types that they acquired or left. The findings indicate that respondents more frequently moved from no-network status at baseline to close family-based social network types at follow-up than to other network types. In comparison, the loss of a network at follow-up was seen to originate from close networks and from other network types alike. Multivariate analysis revealed that those who moved from socially detached status to close-family networks had fewer depressive symptoms compared to those who moved to other network types. However, the move from a close-family network to the no-network status was about as depressing as was being chronically isolated. The effects of network transitions were more varied in relation to the life satisfaction outcome. In sum, the findings suggest that a transition out of social isolation in late life is possible and it may be beneficial as well.

Transitions in Social Network Types over Time among Older Adults

“…This indicates that some older adults were proactive and resilient enough to maintain or cultivate diverse networks when they lost their spouse [13,45]. The findings also correspond to Litwin and Levinsky [16], who showed that more than onethird of older Europeans, who had no network in 2011, gained one or more confidant ties outside their close family (children and spouse) in 2015.…”

“…Research on older Americans found that more than 80% of older adults add one or more new confidants to their social networks in 5 years [3]. Studies analyzing European older adults also reported a general trend of expansion in confidant networks in 4 years [4, 16]. Yet, these studies have mainly focused on cultivation of strong ties, measured by a name generator asking older adults with whom they discuss important matters [17].…”

Mapping Protective Performance of Social Network Types on Health and Quality of Life in Older People in European Regions

“…In the subsequent analyses, we also decided to analyze the results of the “no network” profile, composed of all those without a social confidant network. Although added after the cluster analyses, the identification of individuals with this type of network is important because of their very vulnerable situation (Litwin & Levinsky, 2021). Table 2 helps interpret the five-profile solution, showing the percentages of the criterion variables and the means of the network size for all respondents with at least one confidant.…”

“…Future longitudinal research should further investigate how changes in health and social networks are related. In this direction, some longitudinal research shows that social networks can change in old age, and it is possible to move from a less supportive social network to a more supportive one which has beneficial health effects (Litwin & Levinsky, 2021). It is important for future research to study how this shift occurs to reduce the number of older people in the “no network” group, bearing in mind that in some countries such as southern Europe the prevalence of this group is much higher than in other regions.…”

“…These aspects were defined by the following model: the structure (e.g., network size and composition), the interactions or dynamics with network members (e.g., frequency of contact) and the quality of the relationship, and the feeling of closeness with those who are part of the network (Ye & Zhang, 2019). There has not yet been any consensus regarding the number of typologies or their composition (Harasemiw et al, 2019) but there are four types of networks that stand out in most studies: A "diverse" network (that includes relationships with family, neighbors, and friends), the "family" network (based primarily on close ties 4 with family members such as spouse, children, and siblings), the "friends" network (primary composed of friends), and the "restricted" network or "no network" that only have minimal or no ties, respectively (Cheng, 2009;Fiori et al, 2008;Litwin et al, 2021). This no network type is composed, in some studies such as the one by Litwin and Stoeckel (2014), of all those who claim to have no one in their confidant network.…”