Andrew D Wormald1, Philip McCallion2, Mary McCarron3. 1. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. Electronic address: awormald@tcd.ie. 2. School of Social Work, Temple University, Philadelphia, United States. 3. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The cognitive discrepancy approach to loneliness is often used to describe loneliness in ageing populations, but to date, it has never been used to explore loneliness in older people with an intellectual disability. An analysis is needed utilising a refined list of causes of loneliness in this population. METHOD: Using data from a nationally representative dataset of people aged over 40 with an intellectual disability (N = 708), this analysis runs repeated regressions of variables grouped into conceptual blocks, organised from sociodemographic to network quality. RESULTS: Variables selected predicted 23% of the loneliness variance. Functional limitations, education, working in the community, transport difficulties, pain, stress caused by service change, emotional health problems and confiding were all significant predictors of loneliness. CONCLUSION: That for those with fewer functional limitations only transport difficulties precipitated loneliness, suggests living a more independent life protects from loneliness, in this group. Those with functional limitations and who lead a more service dependent life appear more exposed to loneliness precipitating variables.
INTRODUCTION: The cognitive discrepancy approach to loneliness is often used to describe loneliness in ageing populations, but to date, it has never been used to explore loneliness in older people with an intellectual disability. An analysis is needed utilising a refined list of causes of loneliness in this population. METHOD: Using data from a nationally representative dataset of people aged over 40 with an intellectual disability (N = 708), this analysis runs repeated regressions of variables grouped into conceptual blocks, organised from sociodemographic to network quality. RESULTS: Variables selected predicted 23% of the loneliness variance. Functional limitations, education, working in the community, transport difficulties, pain, stress caused by service change, emotional health problems and confiding were all significant predictors of loneliness. CONCLUSION: That for those with fewer functional limitations only transport difficulties precipitated loneliness, suggests living a more independent life protects from loneliness, in this group. Those with functional limitations and who lead a more service dependent life appear more exposed to loneliness precipitating variables.