CORE
🇺🇦
make metadata, not war
Services
Services overview
Explore all CORE services
Access to raw data
API
Dataset
FastSync
Content discovery
Recommender
Discovery
OAI identifiers
OAI Resolver
Managing content
Dashboard
Bespoke contracts
Consultancy services
Support us
Support us
Membership
Sponsorship
Community governance
Advisory Board
Board of supporters
Research network
About
About us
Our mission
Team
Blog
FAQs
Contact us
Lonely places or lonely people? Investigating the relationship between loneliness and place of residence
Authors
J Pikhartova
CR Victor
Publication date
26 December 2019
Publisher
'Springer Science and Business Media LLC'
Doi
Abstract
© The Author(s). 2020. 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 4663 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.Economic and Social Research Council UK; The Dunhill Medical Trus
Similar works
Full text
Open in the Core reader
Download PDF
Available Versions
UCL Discovery
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:eprints.ucl.ac.uk.OAI2:101...
Last time updated on 23/10/2023
Crossref
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
Last time updated on 10/08/2021
Sustaining member
Brunel University Research Archive
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:bura.brunel.ac.uk:2438/210...
Last time updated on 18/12/2020
Sustaining member
Brunel University Research Archive
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:bura.brunel.ac.uk:2438/211...
Last time updated on 18/12/2020