| Literature DB >> 30249200 |
Gabrielle Lindsay-Smith1, Grant O'Sullivan2, Rochelle Eime2,3, Jack Harvey2,3, Jannique G Z van Uffelen2,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social wellbeing factors such as loneliness and social support have a major impact on the health of older adults and can contribute to physical and mental wellbeing. However, with increasing age, social contacts and social support typically decrease and levels of loneliness increase. Group social engagement appears to have additional benefits for the health of older adults compared to socialising individually with friends and family, but further research is required to confirm whether group activities can be beneficial for the social wellbeing of older adults.Entities:
Keywords: Ageing; Friendship; Group activity; Loneliness; Retirement; Social engagement; Social support
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30249200 PMCID: PMC6154814 DOI: 10.1186/s12877-018-0913-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Geriatr ISSN: 1471-2318 Impact factor: 3.921
Means and standard errors for social wellbeing variables over time
| Variable | Baseline ( | 6 months ( | 12 months ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duke social supporta | 3.83 (0.2) | 4.08 (0.2) | 4.09 (0.2) | 0.065d |
| DJG lonelinessb | 27.95 (1.94) | 26.18 (1.94) | 25.17 (1.94) | 0.028* |
| UCLA lonelinessc | 5.31 (0.39) | 4.64 (0.39) | 4.93 (0.39) | 0.023*d |
*significant effect of time for the indicated variable at p < 0.05
All analyses are adjusted for age, employment at baseline, and mean weekly LAC attendance
aDuke_UNC functional social support scale. Range 1–5. High social support = 5. p-value represents the p-value for the log-transformed variable
bDe Jong Gierveld loneliness scale. Scored as a 5 item likert scale from Yes!, yes, more or less, no, No! Range = 11–55. Highest loneliness = 55.
cUCLA 3-item loneliness scale. Range = 3–9. Highest loneliness = 9
dp-value presented here are log-transformed variable analyses
Sociodemographic and health characteristics of survey and focus group respondents at baseline
| Sociodemographic characteristics | Survey respondents | Focus groups ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age in years, mean (SD) | 66.9 (9.0) | 67.1 (5.9) | |
| Sex, n (%) | Male | 7 (25) | 2 (18) |
| Female | 21 (75) | 9 (82) | |
| Highest level of education, n (%) | Completed primary school | 0 (0) | 1 (9) |
| Up to year 12 | 10 (36) | 3 (27) | |
| Technical studies/ trade certificate | 10 (36) | 4 (36) | |
| Tertiary studies | 6 (21) | 3 (27) | |
| Missing | 2 (7) | 0 | |
| Main life occupation, n (%) | Manager | 4 (14) | 2 (18) |
| Professional | 10 (36) | 4 (3) | |
| Clerical | 9 (32) | 5 (45) | |
| Trade, production or labour | 5 (18) | 0 | |
| Current employment, n (%) | Full-time | 2 (7) | 0 |
| Part-time/casual | 3 (11) | 2 (18) | |
| Not in paid employment | 23 (82) | 9 (81) | |
| Ability to manage on Income, n (%) | Very difficult | 2 (7) | 0 |
| Somewhat difficult | 8 (29) | 3 (27) | |
| Not difficult | 18 (64) | 8 (18) | |
| Present marital status, n (%) | Not married | 17 (61) | 8 (73) |
| Married/defacto | 11 (40) | 3 (27) | |
| Country of birth, n (%) | Australia | 23 (82) | 8 (73) |
| Other | 5 (18) | 3 (27) | |
| Area of residence, n (%) | Urban | 23 (82) | 9 (82) |
| Rural | 5 (18) | 2 (18) | |
| Health | |||
| General health, n (%) | Very good- excellent | 16 (57) | NA |
| Good | 9 (32) | NA | |
| Fair | 3 (11) | NA | |
| Functional health (Walking limitation), n (%) | Some limitation | 2 (7) | NA |
| No limitation | 26 (93) | NA | |
Fig. 1DJG loneliness for all participants over first year of membership at LAC club (n = 28).
*Represents significant difference compared to baseline (p < 0.01)
Fig. 2UCLA loneliness score for all participants over first year of membership at LAC club (n = 28).
*Indicates log values of the variable at 6-months were significantly different from baseline (p < 0.01)
Fig. 3Themes arising from focus group discussion around the benefits of LAC membership