Examining individual and geographic factors associated with social isolation and loneliness using Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) data

Menec, Verena; Newall, Nancy E.; Mackenzie, Corey S.; Shooshtari, Shahin; Nowicki, Scott

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0211143

Cited by 134 publications

(141 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

112

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Beer et al (2016) studied the geographical distribution of social isolation in Australia's older adults and found that social isolation was most acute in both the largest urban centers (i.e., Sydney and Melbourne) and the most sparsely settled regions of South and West Australia. Menec et al (2019) studied individual-level (i.e., sex, income, relationship status) and regional-level (i.e., rural/urban, sociodemographic factors) predictors of social isolation and loneliness in Canada. They showed that socially isolated individuals were clustered into areas with lower-income older adults, but no relations for regional-level predictors and loneliness were found.…”

Section: A Socioecological Perspective On Lonelinessmentioning

confidence: 99%

In a Lonely Place: Investigating Regional Differences in Loneliness

Buecker

Ebert

Götz

et al. 2020

Social Psychological and Personality Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Loneliness has traditionally been studied on the individual level. This study is one of the first to systematically describe and explain differences in loneliness on a fine-grained regional level. Using data from the nationally representative German Socio-Economic Panel Study ( N = 17,602), we mapped the regional distribution of loneliness across Germany and examined whether regional differences in loneliness can be explained by both individual and regional characteristics. Perceived neighborhood relation, perceived distance to public parks and sport/leisure facilities as well as objective regional remoteness and population change were positively related to loneliness. Individual-level characteristics, however, appeared to be more important in explaining variance in loneliness. In sum, loneliness varies across geographical regions, and these differences can partly be linked to characteristics of these regions. Our results may aid governments and public health care services to identify geographical areas most at risk of loneliness and the resulting physical and mental health issues.

show abstract

Section: A Socioecological Perspective On Lonelinessmentioning

confidence: 99%

In a Lonely Place: Investigating Regional Differences in Loneliness

Buecker

Ebert

Götz

et al. 2020

Social Psychological and Personality Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sullivan and Victor [25] At the macro-level, there is comparatively little research examining the distribution of loneliness geographically and considering how area based factors, such as deprivation or rural/urban typology are associated with loneliness in later life [19,26]. Age UK produced loneliness 'heat maps' for 32,844 neighbourhoods in England [27] focused upon helping target resources at areas most 'in need' but did not investigate how and why loneliness may vary between different types of geographical areas. This work replicates the 'loneliness maps' generated by Dorling [28].…”

Section: Factors Related To Loneliness In Later Lifementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies drawing comparisons of individual-based loneliness between deprived and non-deprived areas or rural and urban areas for older adults are less numerous. At a national level, Menec and colleagues looked at the distribution of loneliness across Canada [32]. 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.…”

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

“…Furthermore, depression can lead to low physical activity, while loneliness is known to be highly prevalent among older people with depression . We also adjusted for setting (ie, rural or urban) as it is known that older people living in cities are often less physical active, while urban living may influence loneliness . Finally, we adjusted for household size (1, 2, and 3 or more) and social cohesion in the community to assess the independent effect of loneliness regardless of social ties.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physical activity and loneliness among adults aged 50 years or older in six low‐ and middle‐income countries

Vancampfort

Lara

Smith

et al. 2019

Int J Geriat Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Loneliness is widespread and associated with deleterious outcomes in middle‐aged and older age people in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Physical activity is one potential psychosocial strategy with the potential to reduce loneliness in this population. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore associations between physical activity (PA) and loneliness in middle‐aged and older people from six LMICs. Materials and methods Data from the Study on Global Ageing and Adult Health (SAGE) were analyzed. Self‐reported data on loneliness and PA (as assessed by the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire) were collected. Participants were dichotomized into those who do and do not meet the international recommendation of 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous PA per week. Associations between loneliness and PA were examined using logistic regressions. Results Among 34 129 individuals aged 50 years or older, the prevalence of loneliness was higher among those not meeting the PA guidelines in all countries, although this difference was not significant in Mexico and South Africa. After full adjustment, not meeting PA guidelines was positively associated with loneliness in the meta‐analysis based on country‐wise estimates, with a moderate level of between‐country heterogeneity being observed (OR = 1.31; 95% CI, 1.07‐1.61; I2 = 48.7%). At an individual country level, statistical significance was only reached in Ghana (OR = 1.89; 95% CI = 1.44‐2.49). Discussion Our data suggest that physical inactivity and loneliness commonly co‐occur in adults aged 50 years or older in LMICs overall but that this association differs by country. Longitudinal studies are required to confirm these findings and investigate potential mechanisms that may inform future interventions.

show abstract

Examining individual and geographic factors associated with social isolation and loneliness using Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) data

Cited by 134 publications

References 66 publications

In a Lonely Place: Investigating Regional Differences in Loneliness

In a Lonely Place: Investigating Regional Differences in Loneliness

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

Physical activity and loneliness among adults aged 50 years or older in six low‐ and middle‐income countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About