Epidemiology of loneliness in a cohort of UK mental health community crisis service users

Abstract

Purpose Loneliness is an important issue for mental health service users. However, it has not been a particularly prominent focus of recent mental health research. This paper aimed to explore the severity of loneliness among people leaving mental health community crisis services, and to identify factors associated with loneliness. Methods A total of 399 participants experiencing mental health crises recruited for a research trial from community crisis services were included in this cross-sectional study. They completed the eight-item measure of the University of California at Los Angeles Loneliness Scale and a set of instruments assessing socio-demographic, psychosocial, and psychiatric variables. Results Severity of loneliness was high among people leaving community crisis services. Longer years since first contact with mental health services (2-10 years, coefficient = 1.83, 95% CI 0.49-3.16; more than 10 years, coefficient = 1.91, 95% CI 0.46-3.36) and more severe affective symptoms (coefficient = 0.32, 95% CI 0.23-0.40) were associated with greater loneliness, whereas bigger social network size (coefficient = − 0.56, 95% CI − 0.76 to − 0.36) and greater social capital (coefficient = − 0.16, 95% CI − 0.31 to − 0.003) were associated with less severe loneliness. Conclusions This paper supports a view that people experiencing mental health crises often report relatively severe loneliness, and that loneliness tends to become more severe during the course of illness. A greater awareness of loneliness among mental health professionals may be beneficial. Loneliness is a potential focus of the development of interventions to improve the lives and outcomes of people with significant mental health problems.

Prevalence of loneliness and association with depressive and anxiety symptoms among retirees in Northcentral Nigeria: a cross-sectional study

“…We reported means and standard deviations of scores, along with the t-values, F-values, Pearson's Chi-square values, degrees of freedom, and the p-values. We created two categories for the primary outcomes using the cut-off points, as recommended by Wang et al [35] and Lovibond and Lovibond [42] for the bivariate and multivariate analyses. Using the cut-point of 24 on the ULS-8 scale, we classified participants into lonely (coded as 1) and not lonely (coded as 0).…”

“…Given the fact there is no conventional cut-off point for the ULS-8, we used a cut-off score of 24 to classify participants into lonely and not lonely. The cut-off point was used in a previous study [35]. In this study, the ULS-8 has a Cronbach's alpha of .76 (See Additional file 4).…”

Loneliness in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: Cross-sectional results from the COVID-19 Psychological Wellbeing Study

“…Relative to those over 65 years of age, younger adults were 4-5 times more likely to be lonely (18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24) . Compared to being single, being separated or divorced more than doubled the odds of being lonely (OR: 2.29, CI: 1.31-4.00), whereas being married or cohabiting was associated with lower odds of being lonely (OR: 0.35, CI: 0.26-0.46).…”

“…Findings on gender differences have also been mixed, with some studies reporting higher loneliness in females [23] and others finding no effect of gender [7,8,10]. Risk of loneliness is greater among individuals with mental [24] and chronic physical health conditions [25], however the direction of the effect is unclear.…”

“…Limited social interaction is a particularly important risk factor for loneliness among younger people [19,32]. On the other hand, close relationships and social capital have been associated with lower odds of being lonely [7,24]. Redundancy or unemployment due to the pandemic may challenge people's economic security, and socioeconomic status, lower income, and unemployment have been associated with increased loneliness [7,33].…”