Examining social isolation and loneliness in combination in relation to social support and psychological distress using Canadian Longitudinal Study of Aging (CLSA) data

Abstract

Background Although a large body of research has focused on social isolation and loneliness, few studies have examined social isolation and loneliness together. The objectives of this study were to examine: 1) the relationship between four groups derived from combining social isolation and loneliness (socially isolated and lonely; only socially isolated; only lonely; neither socially isolated nor lonely) and the desire for more social participation, and social support; and 2) the relationship between the four groups and psychological distress. Methods The study was based on the Comprehensive Cohort of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging. Using CLSA baseline data (unweighted N = 30,079), ordinary and logistic regression analysis was used to examine the cross-sectional relationship between the four social isolation/loneliness groups and desire for more social participation and four types of social support (tangible, positive interaction, affection, and emotional support). Prospective logistic regression analysis was possible for psychological distress, which was derived from the Maintaining Contact Questionnaire administered about 18 months after the baseline questionnaire (unweighted N = 28,789). Results Findings indicate that being socially isolated and lonely was associated with the most social support gaps; this group also had an increased likelihood of psychological distress, relative to those who were neither socially isolated nor lonely. Participants who were only socially isolated, and those only lonely also perceived some social support gaps. In addition, the only lonely group was more likely to be psychologically distressed than the only socially isolated group and the neither isolated nor lonely group.

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

“…Research prior to the pandemic estimated the prevalence of loneliness to be between 7 and 49% (Beutel et al, 2017;Menec et al, 2020;Nyqvist et al, 2017;Victor & Bowling, 2012). In the current study, prevalence falls between estimates of loneliness measured during the pandemic in the US (43%) and the UK (14%) (Bu et al, 2020b;Killgore et al, 2020).…”

“…In particular, how psychosocial factors or factors specific to disease-containment policies might elevate or mitigate risk during a pandemic. Moreover, in non-pandemic contexts, evidence suggests that the prevalence of loneliness ranges from 7-49%; with variations across demographic groups (Beutel et al, 2017;Menec et al, 2020;Nyqvist et al, 2017;Victor & Bowling, 2012) and countries (Stickley et al, 2013;Victor & Yang, 2011). Considering the drastic changes in the current social context, it is conceivable that the prevalence of situational loneliness will be high; which is substantiated by the publics' concerns regarding the impact of social isolation on mental health (Cowan, 2020;Holmes et al, 2020).…”

“…Studies of quarantine have found that individuals struggle to adapt to a way of life incongruent with humans' social nature (Brooks et al, 2020), and report a range of negative psychological reactions to quarantine, including loneliness (DiGiovanni et al, 2004;Lin et al, 2010). In non-pandemic contexts, geographical isolation, living alone, and lack of social engagement predicts loneliness in adult and older adult populations (Beutel et al, 2017;Cohen-Mansfield et al, 2016;Luo et al, 2012;Menec et al, 2020;Savikko et al, 2005;Theeke, 2009;Victor & Bowling, 2012). Limited social interaction is a particularly important risk factor for loneliness among younger people (Matthews et al, 2016;Victor & Yang, 2011).…”

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

“…In particular, how psychosocial factors or factors specific to disease-containment policies might elevate or mitigate risk. Moreover, in non-pandemic contexts, evidence suggests that the prevalence of loneliness ranges from 6–76%; with variations across demographic groups [ 5 , 13 – 17 ] and countries [ 18 , 19 ]. Considering the drastic changes in the current social context, it is conceivable that the prevalence of situational loneliness will be high; which is substantiated by the publics’ concerns regarding the impact of social isolation on mental health [ 1 , 3 ].…”

“…Studies of quarantine have found that individuals struggle to adapt to a way of life incongruent with humans’ social nature [ 26 ], and report a range of negative psychological reactions to quarantine, including loneliness [ 27 , 28 ]. In non-pandemic contexts, geographical isolation, living alone, and lack of social engagement predicts loneliness in adult and older adult populations [ 5 , 13 , 15 , 20 , 29 – 31 ]. Limited social interaction is a particularly important risk factor for loneliness among younger people [ 19 , 32 ].…”