J E McHugh1,2, R A Kenny1, B A Lawlor1, A Steptoe3, F Kee2. 1. Institute of Neuroscience, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland. 2. Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, BT12 6BJ, UK. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Scant evidence is available on the discordance between loneliness and social isolation among older adults. We aimed to investigate this discordance and any health implications that it may have. METHOD: Using nationally representative datasets from ageing cohorts in Ireland (TILDA) and England (ELSA), we created a metric of discordance between loneliness and social isolation, to which we refer as Social Asymmetry. This metric was the categorised difference between standardised scores on a scale of loneliness and a scale of social isolation, giving categories of: Concordantly Lonely and Isolated, Discordant: Robust to Loneliness, or Discordant: Susceptible to Loneliness. We used regression and multilevel modelling to identify potential relationships between Social Asymmetry and cognitive outcomes. RESULTS: Social Asymmetry predicted cognitive outcomes cross-sectionally and at a two-year follow-up, such that Discordant: Robust to Loneliness individuals were superior performers, but we failed to find evidence for Social Asymmetry as a predictor of cognitive trajectory over time. CONCLUSIONS: We present a new metric and preliminary evidence of a relationship with clinical outcomes. Further research validating this metric in different populations, and evaluating its relationship with other outcomes, is warranted.
OBJECTIVE: Scant evidence is available on the discordance between loneliness and social isolation among older adults. We aimed to investigate this discordance and any health implications that it may have. METHOD: Using nationally representative datasets from ageing cohorts in Ireland (TILDA) and England (ELSA), we created a metric of discordance between loneliness and social isolation, to which we refer as Social Asymmetry. This metric was the categorised difference between standardised scores on a scale of loneliness and a scale of social isolation, giving categories of: Concordantly Lonely and Isolated, Discordant: Robust to Loneliness, or Discordant: Susceptible to Loneliness. We used regression and multilevel modelling to identify potential relationships between Social Asymmetry and cognitive outcomes. RESULTS: Social Asymmetry predicted cognitive outcomes cross-sectionally and at a two-year follow-up, such that Discordant: Robust to Loneliness individuals were superior performers, but we failed to find evidence for Social Asymmetry as a predictor of cognitive trajectory over time. CONCLUSIONS: We present a new metric and preliminary evidence of a relationship with clinical outcomes. Further research validating this metric in different populations, and evaluating its relationship with other outcomes, is warranted.
Authors: Joanna E McHugh Power; Linnea Sjöberg; Frank Kee; Rose Ann Kenny; Brian Lawlor Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2019-03-12 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Ji Hyun Lee; Martina Luchetti; Damaris Aschwanden; Amanda A Sesker; Jason E Strickhouser; Antonio Terracciano; Angelina R Sutin Journal: J Aging Health Date: 2021-05-22
Authors: Michelle E Kelly; Hollie Duff; Sara Kelly; Joanna E McHugh Power; Sabina Brennan; Brian A Lawlor; David G Loughrey Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2017-12-19
Authors: Federico d'Oleire Uquillas; Heidi I L Jacobs; Kelsey D Biddle; Michael Properzi; Bernard Hanseeuw; Aaron P Schultz; Dorene M Rentz; Keith A Johnson; Reisa A Sperling; Nancy J Donovan Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2018-12-18 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Nichol M L Wong; Robin Shao; Jingsong Wu; Jing Tao; Lidian Chen; Tatia M C Lee Journal: Brain Struct Funct Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 3.270
Authors: Simone A Tomaz; Pete Coffee; Gemma C Ryde; Bridgitte Swales; Kacey C Neely; Jenni Connelly; Andrew Kirkland; Louise McCabe; Karen Watchman; Federico Andreis; Jack G Martin; Ilaria Pina; Anna C Whittaker Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-24 Impact factor: 4.614