Feifei Bu1, Andrew Steptoe1, Daisy Fancourt2. 1. Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK. 2. Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK. Electronic address: d.fancourt@ucl.ac.uk.
Abstract
RATIONALE: There are increasing worries that lockdowns and 'stay-at-home' orders due to the COVID-19 pandemic could lead to a rise in loneliness, which is recognised as a major public health concern. But profiles of loneliness during the pandemic and risk factors remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: The current study aimed to examine if and how loneliness levels changed during the strict lockdown and to explore the clustering of loneliness growth trajectories. METHODS: Data from 38,217 UK adults in the UCL COVID -19 Social Study (a panel study collecting data weekly during the pandemic) were analysed during the strict lockdown period in the UK (23/03/2020-10/05/2020). The sample was well-stratified and weighted to population proportions of gender, age, ethnicity, education and geographical location. Growth mixture modelling was used to identify the latent classes of loneliness growth trajectories and their predictors. RESULTS: Analyses revealed four classes, with the baseline loneliness level ranging from low to high. In the first a few weeks of lockdown, loneliness levels increased in the highest loneliness group, decreased in the lowest loneliness group, and stayed relatively constant in the middle two groups. Younger adults (OR = 2.17-6.81), women (OR = 1.59), people with low income (OR = 1.3), the economically inactive (OR = 1.3-2.04) and people with mental health conditions (OR = 5.32) were more likely to be in highest loneliness class relative to the lowest. Further, living with others or in a rural area, and having more close friends or greater social support were protective. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived levels of loneliness under strict lockdown measures due to COVID-19 were relatively stable in the UK, but for many people these levels were high with no signs of improvement. Results suggest that more efforts are needed to address loneliness.
RATIONALE: There are increasing worries that lockdowns and 'stay-at-home' orders due to the COVID-19 pandemic could lead to a rise in loneliness, which is recognised as a major public health concern. But profiles of loneliness during the pandemic and risk factors remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: The current study aimed to examine if and how loneliness levels changed during the strict lockdown and to explore the clustering of loneliness growth trajectories. METHODS: Data from 38,217 UK adults in the UCL COVID -19 Social Study (a panel study collecting data weekly during the pandemic) were analysed during the strict lockdown period in the UK (23/03/2020-10/05/2020). The sample was well-stratified and weighted to population proportions of gender, age, ethnicity, education and geographical location. Growth mixture modelling was used to identify the latent classes of loneliness growth trajectories and their predictors. RESULTS: Analyses revealed four classes, with the baseline loneliness level ranging from low to high. In the first a few weeks of lockdown, loneliness levels increased in the highest loneliness group, decreased in the lowest loneliness group, and stayed relatively constant in the middle two groups. Younger adults (OR = 2.17-6.81), women (OR = 1.59), people with low income (OR = 1.3), the economically inactive (OR = 1.3-2.04) and people with mental health conditions (OR = 5.32) were more likely to be in highest loneliness class relative to the lowest. Further, living with others or in a rural area, and having more close friends or greater social support were protective. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived levels of loneliness under strict lockdown measures due to COVID-19 were relatively stable in the UK, but for many people these levels were high with no signs of improvement. Results suggest that more efforts are needed to address loneliness.
Authors: Ruth A Hackett; Mark Hamer; Romano Endrighi; Lena Brydon; Andrew Steptoe Journal: Psychoneuroendocrinology Date: 2012-04-12 Impact factor: 4.905
Authors: Steve W Cole; Louise C Hawkley; Jesusa M Arevalo; Caroline Y Sung; Robert M Rose; John T Cacioppo Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2007 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Emily A Holmes; Rory C O'Connor; V Hugh Perry; Irene Tracey; Simon Wessely; Louise Arseneault; Clive Ballard; Helen Christensen; Roxane Cohen Silver; Ian Everall; Tamsin Ford; Ann John; Thomas Kabir; Kate King; Ira Madan; Susan Michie; Andrew K Przybylski; Roz Shafran; Angela Sweeney; Carol M Worthman; Lucy Yardley; Katherine Cowan; Claire Cope; Matthew Hotopf; Ed Bullmore Journal: Lancet Psychiatry Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 27.083
Authors: Andrés Losada-Baltar; Lucía Jiménez-Gonzalo; Laura Gallego-Alberto; María Del Sequeros Pedroso-Chaparro; José Fernandes-Pires; María Márquez-González Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Ewa Dobiała; Anna Gulczyńska; Rafał Małecki; Polina Efremova; Joanna Ławicka; Ewa Karmolińska-Jagodzik; Ivan Kirillov Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-15 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Matilde M Vaghi; McKenzie P Hagen; Henry M Jones; Jeanette A Mumford; Patrick G Bissett; Russell A Poldrack Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 7.989
Authors: Franziska Tutzer; Beatrice Frajo-Apor; Silvia Pardeller; Barbara Plattner; Anna Chernova; Christian Haring; Bernhard Holzner; Georg Kemmler; Josef Marksteiner; Carl Miller; Martin Schmidt; Barbara Sperner-Unterweger; Alex Hofer Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Lara B Aknin; Jan-Emmanuel De Neve; Elizabeth W Dunn; Daisy E Fancourt; Elkhonon Goldberg; John F Helliwell; Sarah P Jones; Elie Karam; Richard Layard; Sonja Lyubomirsky; Andrew Rzepa; Shekhar Saxena; Emily M Thornton; Tyler J VanderWeele; Ashley V Whillans; Jamil Zaki; Ozge Karadag; Yanis Ben Amor Journal: Perspect Psychol Sci Date: 2022-01-19