Urban-rural differences in social capital in relation to self-rated health and subjective well-being in older residents  of six regions in Poland

2020

Preprint

Background: Loneliness in later life is largely presented as a problem of the individual focusing upon antecedents such as demographic or health factors. Research examining the role of the broader living environments is much rarer. We examined the relationship between loneliness and three dimensions 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+ (wave 7 mean age 72.8, S.D.= 7.1) present both in waves 3 (2006) and 7 (2014) of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). Loneliness was measured using two approaches, individual and area-based, and both waves included these questions. Individual-based (self-reported) loneliness was assessed using the three item University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) scale (ranging from 3 =not lonely to 9= lonely with a score of 6+ defining loneliness. We also used a novel question which asked participants to evaluate how often they felt lonely in their area of residence (area-based; ranging from 1=often to 7=never, using cut off 4+ to define loneliness). The lived environment was classified in three different ways: the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), Government Office Regions (GOR), and area classification (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, the prevalence of individual-based loneliness was 18% and area-based was 25%. There was limited congruence between measures: 68% participants reported no individual- or area-based loneliness and 9% reported loneliness for both measures. After adjusting for individual co-variates only one significant relationship was observed between loneliness and area -based characteristics. A significant association was observed between area-based loneliness and deprivation score, with higher levels of loneliness in more deprived areas (OR=1.4 for highest quintile of deprivation). 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.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

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

Victor¹,

2020

Preprint

“…was not associated with region or area classification in terms of urban/rural. This lack of an association with urban/rural area classification aligns with the studies from Ireland [36] , Canada [34] and Poland [37] but not from New Zealand, although the basis of their study was service users rather than the general population [36]. Our study reported increased rates of loneliness in deprived areas which, whilst not reaching the levels reported by Scarf and de Jong Gierveld [17] of 57%, are significantly higher than those in the least deprived areas (range 36-80% depending on measure and data collection wave).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Havens and Hall (2004) compared loneliness among older (aged 72+) Manitobans using a customised measure (derived from the de Jong Gierveld scale and two single-item questions used elsewhere) ,and reported loneliness prevalence of 47% (rural) and 43% (urban) [35]. A Polish study, reported by Tobiasz-Adamczyk, of 1,200 older adults aged 65+ concluded that there were no differences in loneliness between urban and rural areas using the 3 item UCLA scale (14.7% (urban) versus 15.8% (rural)) [37].…”

Section: The Geography Of Lonelinessmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Victor¹,

2019

Preprint

Background: Loneliness in later life is largely presented as a problem of the individual focusing upon antecedents such as demographic or health factors. Research examining the role of the broader living environments is much rarer. We examined the relationship between loneliness and three dimensions 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+ (wave 7 mean age 72.8, S.D.= 7.1) present both in waves 3 (2006) and 7 (2014) of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). Loneliness was measured using two approaches, individual and area-based, and both waves included these questions. Individual-based (self-reported) loneliness was assessed using the three item University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) scale (ranging from 3 =not lonely to 9= lonely with a score of 6+ defining loneliness. We also used a novel question which asked participants to evaluate how often they felt lonely in their area of residence (area-based; ranging from 1=often to 7=never, using cut off 4+ to define loneliness). The lived environment was classified in three different ways: the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), Government Office Regions (GOR), and area classification (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, the prevalence of individual-based loneliness was 18% and area-based was 25%. There was limited congruence between measures: 68% participants reported no individual- or area-based loneliness and 9% reported loneliness for both measures. After adjusting for individual co-variates only one significant relationship was observed between loneliness and area -based characteristics. A significant association was observed between area-based loneliness and deprivation score, with higher levels of loneliness in more deprived areas (OR=1.4 for highest quintile of deprivation). 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.

“…Havens and Hall (2004) compared loneliness among older (aged 72+) Manitobans and reported that, using a customised measure (derived from existing de Jong Gierveld scale and two single-item questions used elsewhere), 47% of rural and 43% of urban Manitobans were lonely [33]. A Polish study, reported by Tobiasz-Adamczyk, of 1,200 older adults aged 65+ concluded that there were no differences in loneliness between urban and rural areas using the 3 item UCLA scale (14.7% (urban) versus 15.8% (rural)) [35].…”

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,

2019

Preprint

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.