The prevalence of loneliness and its determinants among geriatric population in Bengaluru City, Karnataka, India

Abstract

Background: Loneliness affects all the individuals, but the extent of problem among geriatric population is not really known. This study is conducted to different socio-economic environment, co-morbid conditions and disabilities affecting daily activities related to old age loneliness with an objective to estimate the prevalence of loneliness among elderly aged population and to determine the factors influencing loneliness among them. Methods: A community based, quantitative, descriptive, cross sectional and explorative study was conducted among 370 elderly populations residing in ward 32 in Bengaluru city between July and August 2015. Information was collected using revised UCLA loneliness questionnaire at the doorsteps and analysis was done using SPSS. Results: The prevalence of loneliness with a score of 50 and above was 37.6%, among males and females it was observed 29.6% and 42.7% respectively. The increase in prevalence was proportional to their age group. Elderly people aged 80 years and above were more affected. The problem of loneliness increased as the family size decreases (85.7%), either of the spouse was separated or dead (46.7%), presence of disabilities affecting basic and instrumental daily activities (61% and 39%) and financial dependency (38.5%). Likewise Loneliness decreased as the number of family members aged 60 years and more increased in the family. Conclusions: The prevalence of loneliness was 37.6% among the elderly population. Females were affected more. The factors influencing loneliness are older age group, illiterates, not living with spouse, only person in the family aged 60 years and above, family size of more than five and presence of daily activity disability.

Prevalence and correlates of loneliness in India: A systematic review

“…After retrieving and evaluating the full texts, 28 articles did not meet our criteria. At the end of the screening process, 13 articles met all the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were recruited in this systematic review (Anil et al, 2016;Bhogle, 1991;Grover et al, 2019Grover et al, , 2018Malhotra et al, 2019;Mishra et al, 2013;Nayyar and Singh, 2011;Ninan and Gopinath, 2013;Samanta et al, 2012;Shettar et al, 2017;Singh and Mishra, 2009;Susheela et al, 2018;Upmanyu et al, 1994).…”

“…Most (n = 4) studies were conducted in Karnataka (Anil et al, 2016;Ninan and Gopinath, 2013;Shettar et al, 2017;Susheela et al, 2018), followed by Punjab (n = 3) Nayyar and Singh, 2011;Upmanyu et al, 1994), Andhra Pradesh (n = 2) (Bhogle, 1991;Mishra et al, 2013), Delhi (n = 1) (Singh and Mishra, 2009), Haryana (n = 1) (Malhotra et al, 2019), and West Bengal (n = 1) (Samanta et al, 2012). A study by Grover et al included participants from multiple states of India (Grover et al, 2018).…”

“…A study by Grover et al included participants from multiple states of India (Grover et al, 2018). In most of the studies (n = 10), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Loneliness Scale was used to evaluate loneliness among the participants (Anil et al, 2016;Bhogle, 1991;Grover et al, 2019Grover et al, , 2018Mishra et al, 2013;Nayyar and Singh, 2011;Shettar et al, 2017;Singh and Mishra, 2009;Susheela et al, 2018;Upmanyu et al, 1994). Other scales used for assessing loneliness, associated sociodemographic, and clinical conditions included differential loneliness scale (Upmanyu et al, 1994), Eysenck personality profiler (Singh and Mishra, 2009), loneliness and social dissatisfaction questionnaire (Ninan and Gopinath, 2013),…”

“…Moreover, five studies recruited elderly participants mostly from community settings (Anil et al, 2016;Grover et al, 2019Grover et al, , 2018Singh and Mishra, 2009;Susheela et al, 2018). In a study by Bhogle S., both children and adult participants were recruited to evaluate how they perceived loneliness (Bhogle, 1991).…”

“…Moreover, this tool was used to rate the overall quality of the included studies. Among 13 studies included in this review, five were rated as good (Anil et al, 2016;Grover et al, 2019;Malhotra et al, 2019;Mishra et al, 2013;Susheela et al, 2018), seven studies as fair (Bhogle, 1991;Grover et al, 2018;Nayyar and Singh, 2011;Ninan and Gopinath, 2013;Samanta et al, 2012;Shettar et al, 2017;Upmanyu et al, 1994), and one study was rated as poor (Singh and Mishra, 2009) following the quality evaluation using NHLBI tool.…”