Chronic and episodic loneliness and social isolation: prevalence and sociodemographic analyses from a longitudinal Australian survey

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1607036/v1

Download PDF

Article

Chronic and episodic loneliness and social isolation: prevalence and sociodemographic analyses from a longitudinal Australian survey

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1607036/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 01 Aug, 2023

Read the published version in Scientific Reports →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Purpose: Loneliness and social isolation, experienced more long-term, has been shown to increase mortality and lead to poorer health outcomes in specific cohorts. However, it is unclear what the prevalence of chronic loneliness and social isolation is, and which demographic groups are most at risk of reporting more chronic forms.

Methods:

A psychometrically validated classification system was used to identify people who met criteria for episodic and chronic loneliness and social isolation using the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey waves 14-18.

Results: The cumulative prevalence over five years of loneliness (overall 34%; 21% episodic, 13% chronic) far exceeded that of social isolation (overall 17%; 13% episodic, 4% chronic). There was consistency in the demographic characteristics (from age, sex, household type, income) of those who experienced loneliness and social isolation. However, people with a long-term health condition had an elevated risk of episodic loneliness (AOR = 1.24, 95%CI = 1.11-1.39) and a markedly higher risk of chronic loneliness (AOR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.76-2.29), compared with those without a long-term health condition.

Conclusions: Loneliness, both episodic and chronic subtypes, is more prevalent than social isolation, yet remains neglected and poorly targeted within current practice and policy.

loneliness

social isolation

chronicity

early intervention

prevention

Being socially connected is fundamental to human health and wellbeing.¹ For decades, social isolation, characterised by an objective lack of social contact and connections,^2,3 has been widely acknowledged as a risk factor for broad-based mortality and morbidity.^4,5 But there has been a growing number of studies that have found similar harmful effects of loneliness on health.⁶ Loneliness - sometimes described as ‘perceived social isolation’, is characterised by distressing feelings when one perceives a discrepancy between desired and actual relationships.⁷ Loneliness is regarded as a biopsychosocial stressor,^8,9 and associated with a multitude of poor health outcomes, from cardiometabolic disease, stroke,¹⁰ dementia,¹¹ and depression.¹² It is therefore not just having social connections but also reporting feeling socially connected to others, that holds implications for one’s risk of morbidity and mortality.^13,14

Both social isolation and loneliness share similar associations with demographic, socio-economic and health factors.^5,15 Socio-demographic characteristics such as age, gender, living alone, socioeconomic status, migrant status and employment are all factors that have been examined in both the social isolation and loneliness research.³ While it is generally perceived that older adults are most socially isolated and lonely,¹⁶ there is mixed evidence on demographic factors such as gender ¹⁵. This is largely reflective of the heterogeneity of samples and measures of loneliness and social isolation that are used.

The impacts of social isolation and loneliness on health are further influenced by a broader number of factors including the social determinants of health in which people may be born into or live under.¹⁷ For example, in studies on social isolation, factors including neighbourhood disadvantage and migrant status play a role in moderating poorer health outcomes including myocardial infarction risk,¹⁸ colorectal cancer risk,¹⁹ carotid stiffness,²⁰ and psychological wellbeing.²¹ Current models of loneliness acknowledge the influence of the social environment and resources available to the lonely individual, ^15,22,23 and it has been reported that some individuals are more likely to break out of the cycle of loneliness than others.²⁴ Indeed, poor health, be it physical or mental, ²⁵ influences one’s capacity to participate socially in their networks including friends, colleagues, and the wider community. Both loneliness and social isolation are linked to higher incidence of chronic disease.^26,27

Population surveys show varying prevalence rates of loneliness and social isolation across different samples and stages. The reported global prevalence rate in a recent meta-analysis noted that the prevalence of loneliness in adolescents (12-17 years old) differed depending on the region (9.2% South-East Asian to 14.4% Eastern Mediterranean countries) and for young people (18-29 years old) was 5.3%.²⁸ Middle aged adults (30-59 years old) reported a pooled prevalence estimate of 6.9% across different parts of European, and for older adults (over 60 years) reported anywhere from 5.2% (Northern Europe), 8.7% (Western Europe), 15.7% Southern European to the highest 21.3% for Eastern Europeans countries.²⁸

While there is robust scientific literature on the negative impact of loneliness and social isolation on health, there has been far less scrutiny on the prevalence rates, sociodemographic risk factors, and the health impacts of persistent experiences (i.e., chronic) loneliness and social isolation. Specifically, social isolation is well-known to be detrimental for health and wellbeing ^4,5 but the evidence on chronic social isolation is largely informed by numerous animal studies (due to ethical reasons)²⁹ or retrospective epidemiological data.³⁰ The study of chronic loneliness on the other hand, remains underexamined because most of this work has been reliant on cross-sectional study designs which may not capture the persistence or stability of these experiences ³¹. Many loneliness measures, both direct, such as Office of National Statistics Loneliness item, ³² and indirect measures UCLA- Loneliness Scale ³³ and De Jong Gierveld Social and Emotional Loneliness scale ³⁴ often capture loneliness through the frequency of lonely feelings (i.e., how often do you feel isolated from others?). This is different to the capturing the persistence of lonely feelings (i.e., how long have you felt isolated from others?) or intensity (e.g., how distressed did you feel?). Attention to the cumulative impact of more chronic experiences of loneliness on poorer health outcomes is growing³⁵ and examined within particular cohorts including older adults ^36-38 and adolescents.³⁹ For instance, chronic loneliness has been found to be associated with an 80% greater risk of death in Americans aged 50 and older (situational HR = 1.56%; 95% CI = 1.52-1.62 versus chronic HR = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.71-1.87).³⁷

Study Aims

This study will add to the growing literature on how chronic forms of loneliness and social isolation affects different demographic groups. First, we aimed to identify the proportion of people who experience loneliness and social isolation persistently over time (i.e., chronicity), as opposed to transient periods (i.e., episodic). Second, we aimed to identify socio-demographic characteristics that were associated with episodic or chronic loneliness and social isolation.

Participants and data source

Data used in this study were collected from the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey a household-based panel study of over 9,000 Australian households conducted annually, with wave 1 starting in 2001.⁴⁰ A number of household-level and person-level questionnaires were completed for each household. This study uses data from the self-completion questionnaire, which is undertaken by individuals aged 15 years or older in each participating household, from waves 14-18 (5 years). We included cases that did not have missing data for loneliness and social isolation items across all waves. In total, we had 10,746 participants from waves 14-18 with no missing loneliness items, and 10,918 participants with no missing social isolation items from waves 14-18.

Measures

The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey is a nationally representative longitudinal study of Australian households which commenced in 2001. The survey collects data on household and family relationships, income, education, employment, living situation, lifestyle behaviours and general health and wellbeing. Funded by the Australian Government Department of Social Services (DSS), the HILDA Survey is managed by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee. In accordance to this, informed consent was obtained from all participants including parents/legal guardians of participants under the age of 18.

Loneliness and social isolation. Previous estimates of the prevalence of loneliness among HILDA participants have been based on responses to the single-item statement “I often feel very lonely”.⁴¹ Using a single item may however lead to underreporting due to the known stigma of loneliness.⁴² To assess loneliness and social isolation, we used the scales derived from 10-items Index of Social Support scale ⁴³ in the HILDA questionnaire (see Supplementary Figure 1 in psychometric validation paper).⁴⁴ The loneliness scale included three items: “People don’t come to visit me as often as I would like”, “I often need help from other people but can’t get it” and “I often feel very lonely”. The social isolation scale included four items: “There is someone who can always cheer me up when I’m down”, “I enjoy the time I spend with the people who are important to me”, “When something’s on my mind, just talking with the people I know can make me feel better” and “When I need someone to help me out, I can usually find someone”. Psychometric analysis has shown that each of these scales has good internal reliability and construct validity.⁴⁴ We classified people who were lonely to have a median score of less than 4, and for social isolation a median item score of greater than 4, on the scales developed for each of these conditions (see methodology in psychometric validation paper).⁴⁴ In this study, we defined episodic loneliness and social isolation as meeting criteria for any episode or number of episodes that were not consecutive (e.g., only wave 15, or both waves 15 and 17). Chronic loneliness and social isolation were defined as meeting criteria for two or more consecutive episodes (e.g., waves 14 and 15, or waves 16, 17, and 18); in other words, a minimum of two consecutive years.

Socio-demographic characteristics. We identified nine socio-demographic characteristics known to be associated with loneliness and social isolation based on previous research. For sex only two categories were used: identifying as male or female. Age was categorised into five groups: 15-29 year; 30-44 yeas; 45-59 years; 60-74 years; or 75 years and over.

Two socio-demographic characteristics that could influence the degree of social interaction include household structure and employment status. Household structure was categorised as follows: 1) couple with child; 2) couple without child; 3) lone parent with child; 4) lone person; or 5) other, which included unrelated household members, other family members, and single or double-parent households with a child over the age of 15. The employment status of participants was classified as: 1) full-time; 2) part-time; 3) retired; 4) unemployed; or 5) other (which included home duties, non-working students and unspecified).

An established social identity⁴⁵ and ability to communicate in the primary language in the country one lives in⁴⁶ were identified as socio-demographic characteristics that could influence social integration. Because migrant status was not directly available, we selected country of birth and language spoke at home. Country of birth was categorised as: 1) Australia; 2) Other English-speaking country; or 3) Other non-English speaking country. Language spoken at home was categorised as 1) English or 2) other.

Two socio-demographic characteristics were selected to indicate economic status, which were household income and neighbourhood disadvantage. Household income was categorised as three levels: 1) less than $80,000; 2) $80,000-$149,999; or 3) more than $150,000. In order to determine relative neighbourhood disadvantage, the composite Socio-Economic Index for Areas and Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage and Disadvantage (SEIFA IRSAD) was used. This captures several variables including income, education, employment, occupation, and housing characteristics at the postcode level, based on the Australian Population Census.⁴⁷ Participants were classified into a SEIFA IRSAD quintile, based on their postcode of residence, with quintile 5 indicating the highest levels of socio-economic advantage and quintile 1 the lowest levels of socio-economic advantage.

We also included a measure of the presence of long-term health conditions to examine how this relates to both loneliness and social isolation. This categorical variable (Yes/No) was coded based on self-reporting of at least one of many listed physical health conditions (e.g., heart disease, arthritis, chronic pain, hearing, or speech problems).

Data analysis

In order to derive prevalence estimates of loneliness and social isolation, the weights provided by HILDA were used, which ensure that the sample is representative of the Australian population distribution of age, sex, state, labour force status, marital status, and household composition. First, we estimated the prevalence of episodic, chronic or any loneliness and social isolation across socio-demographic characteristics and across the HILDA waves 14 (2014) to 18 (2018). Second, we conducted univariable and multivariable logistic regression to assess the difference in episodic, chronic, or either subtype (episodic or chronic) of loneliness and isolation based on the specified socio-demographic characteristics. See Table 1 for episodic and chronic loneliness and Table 2 for episodic and chronic social isolation.

Prevalence of subtypes of loneliness and social isolation

At least 34% of participants reported either episodic or chronic loneliness during waves 14 (2014) to 18 (2018). Of these, 21% experienced an episode of loneliness and 13% experienced chronic loneliness. The prevalence of social isolation was lower than that of loneliness. Only 17% of participants reported either episodic or chronic social isolation during waves 14 (2014) to 18 (2018). Of this, 13% reported episodic social isolation, and 4% reported chronic social isolation (See Fig. 1).

INSERT FIGURE 1

Correlates of subtypes of loneliness and social isolation

Findings from the analysis of the relationship between socio-demographic and health factors and the dependent variables of loneliness and social isolation are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

INSERT Tables 1–2

Sex. Being male was associated with lower likelihood of reporting loneliness (episodic or chronic) compared to females by 11% (OR: 0.89, 95% CI 0.82–0.96), but these relationships became insignificant once adjusted for all covariates. Conversely, being male was associated with a higher likelihood of both episodic (AOR = 1.23, 95%CI = 1.09–1.38) and chronic social isolation (AOR = 1.78; 95%CI = 1.45–2.20).

Age. In order to examine differences across age groups, we used 30–44 years as the reference category given that previous studies have reported this group as being less lonely than the younger age group (15–29 years) and we wished to determine the magnitude of any increased risk in the youngest group. When compared to those aged 30–44 years, younger people aged 15–29 were less likely to report chronic loneliness (AOR = 0.77, 95%CI = 0.62–0.94). However, those aged 60–74 years and those 75 + also showed the same trend reporting significantly less chronic loneliness than those aged 30–44 years. (60–74: AOR = 0.62, 95%CI = 0.49–0.78; 75+: AOR = 0.59 95%CI = 0.43–0.81). Those aged 45–49 were also less likely to experience either subtype of loneliness (AOR = 0.85, 95%CI = 0.75–0.97). In regard to social isolation, only the 45–59 age group reported significantly more of either subtype of social isolation than those aged 30–44 years (AOR = 1.19 95%CI = 1.01–1.40).

Household structure. When compared with couples with children, living alone (AOR = 1.66, 95%CI = 1.36–2.03) and being a lone parent with a child increased the likelihood of chronic loneliness (AOR = 1.64, 95%CI = 1.19–2.27). Couples without children were significantly less likely to experience chronic loneliness (AOR = 0.75, 95%CI = 0.62–0.92) when compared with couples with children. Similarly, when compared with couples with children, people who lived alone or in other household types were more likely to be episodically or chronically social isolated. Lone parents with children were more likely to be episodically socially isolated compared to couples with children (AOR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.05–2.15).

Country of birth and language other than English. Those born in a country other than Australia (non-English speaking) are more likely to report episodic loneliness than those born in Australia (AOR = 1.22, 95%CI = 1.01–1.48), but were significantly less likely to report chronic loneliness (AOR = 0.83, 95%CI = 0.69-1.00). There were no differences in levels of loneliness between people who spoke a language other than English and people who spoke English. People born outside of Australia both in English and non-English speaking countries did not report an increased likelihood of social isolation compared with those born in Australia. Compared with people who spoke only English, those who spoke a language other than English did not show higher levels of social isolation after results were fully adjusted (all ps > 0.05).

Household income. Compared to participants who reported the highest income (over $150,000), participants who reported the lowest income (< $80,000) and those who reported 80-000-149,000 had an increased likelihood of both episodic (<$80,000: AOR = 1.49, 95%CI = 1.27–1.74; $80,000-149,000: AOR = 1.27 95%CI = 1.10–1.45) and chronic loneliness (<$80,000: AOR = 1.66, 95%CI = 1.36–2.02; $80,000-149,000: AOR = 1.26 95%CI = 1.05–1.50). In addition, participants who reported the lowest income (< $80,000) had an increased likelihood of both episodic (AOR = 1.48, 95%CI = 1.22–1.80) and chronic social isolation (AOR = 1.83, 95%CI = 1.30–2.57). Those who those earned between $80,0000 to $149,999, showed an increased likelihood of episodic social isolation (AOR = 1.23, 95%CI = 1.04–1.47) when compared to those who earned over $150,000, but not chronic social isolation.

Employment status. When compared with those in full-time employment, those who were unemployed and those who in ‘other’ category of employment (i.e., home duties, non-working students) were more likely to report episodic (unemployed: AOR = 1.33, 95%CI = 1.01–1.77; other: AOR = 1.21, 95%CI = 1.02–1.77) and chronic loneliness (unemployed: AOR = 1.66, 95%CI = 1.22–2.25; other: AOR = 1.57, 95%CI = 1.29–1.91). Those who were unemployed and those who in ‘other’ category were also more likely than those in full-time employment to report episodic (unemployed: AOR = 1.43, 95%CI = 1.03–1.97; other: AOR = 1.47, 95%CI = 1.19–1.80) and chronic social isolation (unemployed: AOR = 2.46, 95%CI = 1.88–3.24; other: AOR = 2.21, 95%CI = 1.88–2.60).

SEIFA IRSAD. Compared with participants in SEIFA IRSAD 5 (most advantaged), only participants in SEIFA IRSAD quintiles 1 (least advantaged) showed an increased likelihood of both episodic (AOR = 1.36 95% CI = 1.16–1.59) and chronic loneliness (AOR = 1.34 95% CI = 1.11–1.62). On the other hand, participants in SEIFA IRSAD quintiles 1 to 2 had an increased likelihood of both episodic social isolation (quintile 1: AOR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.35–1.97; quintile 2: AOR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.03–1.50) and chronic social isolation (quintile 1: AOR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.15–2.48, quintile 2: AOR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.21–2.59). Those in quintiles 3 and 4 had an increased likelihood of chronic social isolation (quintile 3: AOR = 2.33, 95% CI = 1.61–3.38; quintile 4: AOR = 2.11, 95% CI = 1.46–3.06) compared with those in quintile 5.

Long-term health condition. Participants who reported a long-term health condition showed an increased likelihood of both episodic (AOR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.11–1.39) and chronic loneliness (AOR = 2.01, 95%CI = 1.76–2.29) than those who did not. In addition, participants who reported a long-term health condition reported an increased likelihood of both episodic (AOR = 1.34, 95%CI = 1.17–1.52), and chronic social isolation (AOR = 1.87, 95%CI = 1.50–2.34).

Loneliness and social isolation have been recognised as important public health issues in many countries. While these conditions have similar negative health impacts, it is unclear who is more likely to experience chronic loneliness and social isolation. This study is the first to distinguish episodic from chronic experiences of loneliness and social isolation with the use of longitudinal population data, and to identify who is most vulnerable.

It was noteworthy that the cumulative prevalence rates of loneliness (overall 34%; 21% episodic, 13% chronic) far exceeded the prevalence rates of social isolation (overall 17%; 13% episodic, 4% chronic) in Australia, yet many existing policies and programs have focussed on reducing social isolation and less so on reducing loneliness. Examples are strategies that increase social contact (i.e., reduce social isolation) but do not promote the development and maintenance of meaningful connections, which could reduce loneliness. Several factors may be driving this, including a gap in research translation to practice (e.g., community and health practitioners not measuring loneliness severity) to poor community awareness about what loneliness is (e.g., confusion with social isolation or stigma associated with loneliness).⁴⁸

Being male was protective of any type (episodic or chronic) of loneliness, consistent with previous study which report women are more predisposed to loneliness,⁴⁹ including older women.⁵⁰ Men, however, were more likely to be socially isolated than women, which is consistent with sex differences in reporting subjective versus objective social isolation.^51,52 Although men were more socially isolated, they may be either less vulnerable or more reluctant to report loneliness.

Our results indicate that age differences were only present in those that reported chronic, as opposed to episodic, loneliness. Much of the research to date does not make the distinction between these sub-types, but most point to a U-shaped distribution where younger and older people are more vulnerable to problematic levels of loneliness.^16,53 After accounting for all possible confounding variables, those aged 75 years and older, followed by those aged 60–74 years, and those 15–29 years were all less likely to experience chronic loneliness than those aged 30–44 years. One plausible reason for the greater vulnerability of individuals aged 30–44 years could include a lack of time to nurture and maintain meaningful social relationships.

Interestingly, the only age-related differences in social isolation was the higher prevalence among those aged 45–59 years of either subtype. While there is a strong focus upon social isolation in older adults in both research and public policy, our findings indicate there is a need to assist individuals in the middle-aged, pre-retirement phase of life. Those aged 45–59 years were also less likely to experience any episodic or chronic loneliness, which demonstrates that these constructs are likely to be independent. More research is needed to understand the specific factors that may drive this age group’s social vulnerability.

Our findings indicate that single parents with young children have an elevated risk of chronic loneliness, almost equivalent to those who live alone. Similarly, an earlier study using the HILDA sample also indicate that single fathers with children were at risk of loneliness.⁴³ While there no known studies examining the impact of loneliness in single parents, the detrimental impact is consistent with reports of poor health status⁵⁴ and increased mortality risk in this population group.⁵⁵ It was noteworthy that couples without children were less likely to experience chronic loneliness when compared with couples with children. Further, compared with those without children, almost all groups reported higher levels of episodic social isolation but only those who lived alone and who lived with non-family members were more likely to experience chronic social isolation.

We found no differences between by country of birth (Australia, other English speaking, or non-English speaking) for episodic or chronic social isolation. On the other hand, people from non-English speaking countries were at more risk of episodic loneliness, while tending to have lower risk of chronic loneliness. This may signal that individuals from non-English speaking backgrounds are able to build meaningful social relationships as their duration of residence lengthens. Further research needs to be done comparing loneliness and social isolation between specific cultural groups with appropriate assessment tools, especially in light of research showing that loneliness is a significant predictor of lower self-reported health, greater risk of posttraumatic stress, and higher incidence of mental illness in migrant groups.⁵⁶

Household income was found to have an inverse relationship with the risk of both episodic and chronic loneliness, that is, the lower the income the higher likelihood of reporting each sub-type of loneliness. Similar patterns were found for episodic social isolation, but only those who had the lowest income (<$80,000) reported higher likelihood of chronic social isolation. Plausible reasons for these trends include having fewer resources (i.e., time or money) to invest in developing and maintaining meaningful social connection (i.e., reducing their risk of loneliness and social isolation).⁵¹ It was also found that those who were unemployed showed the highest risk of both episodic and chronic loneliness, but compared with those in full-time employment, people engaged in home duties and non-working students showed the highest risk of episodic and chronic social isolation. This highlights the opportunities that employment can offer for building and developing social connection.

Consistent with previous research,^57–59 those living in more disadvantaged neighbourhoods reported more loneliness and social isolation compared with people living in more advantaged neighbourhoods. More advantaged neighbourhoods may offer more physical spaces and environmental resources (such as green spaces) that can be conducive to promoting social connection.⁶⁰ A similar clear trend was seen for episodic social isolation, with those in the most more disadvantaged neighbourhoods (SEIFA IRSAD 1–2) having the highest risk of episodic social isolation, whereas all groups (SEIFA IRSAD 1–4) were at greater risk of chronic social isolation than those on the most advantaged quintile (SEIFA IRSAD 5).

People who had a long-term health condition were consistently more likely to experience both loneliness and socially isolation, with this sub-group reporting approximately double the risk of chronic loneliness and isolation compared to those without a long-term health condition. Approximately, one in four (24%) individuals with a long-term health condition reported episodic loneliness and one in five (20%) met the criteria for chronic loneliness. While there is a plethora of research on how individual health characteristics (i.e., physical health, BMI),^61,62 and poor health regulation behaviours (i.e., smoking, alcohol use, physical activity)^63,64 influence loneliness and social isolation in specific demographic cohorts, there is a lack of clarity on how these factors influence the onset of chronic loneliness. Our findings nevertheless highlight the importance of preventing loneliness in these vulnerable groups, and the need to equip health care practitioners and community agencies to better support people with long-term health conditions to manage their psychosocial well-being.⁶⁵ This may be in the form of building linkages with others who have a shared experience and to facilitate greater participation with their existing social networks.

Limitations.

While the sample used in analysis was weighted to match the profile of the Australian population, it is possible that individuals taking part in the HILDA longitudinal study are unrepresentative in selected characteristics (social and psychological) that are of importance to this study and cannot be mitigated by means of demographic weighting. Further, these issues may be magnified by the fact participants under 18 were primarily recruited via their parents, who are themselves HILDA participants and this recruitment method may skew our results on loneliness and social isolation reported by young people under 18.

This study enabled examination of how loneliness and social isolation of differing levels of duration affect particular population groups, using psychometrically validated scales but the categorical classification did not enable investigation of the severity (i.e., intensity) of these experiences. Further, our study does not show the factors predicting a transition from episodic loneliness and social isolation to the chronic forms of these conditions, which remains an evidence-gap.⁶⁶

This study did not examine more closely differences in how loneliness and social isolation influence different chronic health conditions,⁶⁷ as there is evidence that the pathway to disease could differ for loneliness and social isolation (e.g., loneliness better predicted poorer mental health; social isolation better predicted poorer physical and cognitive health).⁶⁸ Previous relationships have been established between specific health conditions and loneliness and social isolation, for example, cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes were associated with loneliness and social isolation, but the same effect was not found for other disorders including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cancer.²⁷

Having social connection, be it having more contact with others or feeling meaningfully connected to them, is fundamental for health and wellbeing. Our findings indicate that loneliness when compared with social isolation both in episodic and chronic subtypes, is more prevalent than social isolation, yet it remains neglected and poorly targeted within current practice and policy. Further, we have found that individuals who are socially disadvantaged and those with long-term health conditions are more likely to report episodic and chronic loneliness and social isolation. This highlights the need to better understand the psychological, economic, and environmental mechanisms that are contributing to loneliness and social isolation in these population groups, and to use this knowledge to develop policies and programs that address these critical dimensions of health and quality of life.

No ethics approval and consent were required for this study. This project was granted exemption from ethics review from The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee.

Funding

No funding was provided for this study.

Competing interests

Dr Michelle H Lim and Professor Ben J Smith are part of the Scientific Advisory Committee of Ending Loneliness Together (non-financial competing interests).

Dr Karine Manera, Dr Katherine Owen, and Associate Professor Philayrath Phongsavan declare no competing interests.

Data Availability

This paper uses unit record data from Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey [HILDA] conducted by the Australian Government Department of Social Services (DSS). The findings and views reported in this paper, however, are those of the author[s] and should not be attributed to the Australian Government, DSS, or any of DSS’ contractors or partners. doi:10.26193/YP7MNU

De-identified data is made available in accordance with the Australian Government Department of Social Services (DSS) Longitudinal Studies Data Access and Use Guidelines V5.0.

Cacioppo, J. T. & Cacioppo, S. Social relationships and health: the toxic effects of perceived social isolation. Soc Pers Psychol Compass 8, 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12087 (2014).
Coyle, C. E. & Dugan, E. Social isolation, loneliness and health among older adults. J Aging Health 24, 1346–1363 (2012).
Victor, C., Scambler, S., Bond, J. & Bowling, A. Being alone in later life: loneliness, social isolation and living alone. Rev Clin Geront 10, 407–417 (2000).
Steptoe, A., Shankar, A., Demakakos, P. & Wardle, J. Social isolation, loneliness, and all-cause mortality in older men and women. PNAS 110, 5797–5801, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1219686110 (2013).
Pantell, M. et al. Social isolation: a predictor of mortality comparable to traditional clinical risk factors. Am J Public Health 103, 2056–2062, https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2013.301261 (2013).
Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., Capitanio, J. P. & Cole, S. W. The neuroendocrinology of social isolation. Annu Rev Psychol 66, 733–767, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015240 (2015).
Peplau, L. & Perlman, D. in Loneliness: a sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy. (eds Peplau, L & Perlman, D.) 1–20 (John Wiley and Sons, 1982).
Petitte, T. et al. A systematic review of loneliness and common chronic physical conditions in adults. Open Psychol J 8, 113–132, https://doi.org/10.2174/1874350101508010113 (2015).
Cacioppo, S., Capitanio, J. P. & Cacioppo, J. T. Toward a neurology of loneliness. Psychol Bull 140, 1464–1504, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037618 (2014).
Valtorta, N. K., Kanaan, M., Gilbody, S., Ronzi, S. & Hanratty, B. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for coronary heart disease and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observational studies. Heart 102, 1009–1016, https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2015-308790 (2016).
Kuiper, J. S. et al. Social relationships and risk of dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies. Ageing Res Rev 22, 39–57, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2015.04.006 (2015).
Lim, M. H., Rodebaugh, T. L., Zyphur, M. J. & Gleeson, J. F. Loneliness over time: the crucial role of social anxiety. J Ab Psychol, https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000162 (2016).
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T. & Stephenson, D. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Pers Psychol Sci 10, 227–237, https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352 (2015).
Henriksen, J., Larsen, E. R., Mattisson, C. & Andersson, N. W. Loneliness, health and mortality. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci 28, 234–239, https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045796017000580 (2019).
Lim, M. H., Eres, R. & Vasan, S. Understanding loneliness in the twenty-first century: an update on correlates, risk factors, and potential solutions. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-020-01889-7 (2020).
Victor, C. R. & Yang, K. The prevalence of loneliness among adults: A case study of the United Kingdom. J Psychol 146, 85–104 (2012).
Spruce, L. Back to basics: social determinants of health. Aorn j 110, 60–69, https://doi.org/10.1002/aorn.12722 (2019).
Coughlin, S. S. & Young, L. Social determinants of myocardial infarction risk and survival: a systematic review. Eur j Cardiovasc Res 1, https://doi.org/10.31487/j.ejcr.2020.01.02 (2020).
Coughlin, S. S. Social determinants of colorectal cancer risk, stage, and survival: a systematic review. Int J Colorectal Dis 35, 985–995, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-020-03585-z (2020).
Climie, R. E. et al. Individual and neighborhood deprivation and carotid stiffness. Hypertens 73, 1185–1194, https://doi.org/10.1161/hypertensionaha.118.12186 (2019).
Kim, E. S., Chen, Y., Kawachi, I. & VanderWeele, T. J. Perceived neighborhood social cohesion and subsequent health and well-being in older adults: An outcome-wide longitudinal approach. Health Place 66, 102420, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2020.102420 (2020).
Mann, F. et al. A life less lonely: the state of the art in interventions to reduce loneliness in people with mental health problems. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol, 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-017-1392-y (2017).
Cacioppo, J. T. & Hawkley, L. C. Perceived social isolation and cognition. Trends Cog Sci 13, 447–454, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.06.005 (2009).
Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S. & Boomsma, D. I. Evolutionary mechanisms for loneliness. Cog Emot 28, 3–21, https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.837379 (2014).
Lim, M. H., Gleeson, J. F. M., Alvarez-Jimenez, M. & Penn, D. L. Loneliness in psychosis: a systematic review. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 53, 221–238, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-018-1482-5 (2018).
Theeke, L. Sociodemographic and health-related risks for loneliness and outcome differences by loneliness status in a sample of US older adults. Res Gerontol Nurs 3, 113–125, https://doi.org/ 10.3928/19404921-20091103-99 (2010).
Christiansen, J. et al. Loneliness, Social isolation, and chronic disease outcomes. Ann Beh Med https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaaa044 (2020).
Surkalim, D. L. et al. The prevalence of loneliness across 113 countries: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 376, e067068, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-067068 (2022).
Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., Capitanio, J. P. & Cole, S. W. The neuroendocrinology of social isolation. Ann Rev Psychol 66, 733–767, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015240 (2015).
Caspi, A., Harrington, H., Moffitt, T. E., Milne, B. J. & Poulton, R. Socially isolated children 20 years later: risk of cardiovascular disease. Arch Pediatr Adoles Med 160, 805–811, https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.160.8.805 (2006).
Mund, M., Freuding, M. M., Möbius, K., Horn, N. & Neyer, F. J. The stability and change of loneliness across the life span: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 24, 24–52, https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868319850738 (2020).
Office for National Statistics. What characteristics and circumstances are associated with feeling lonely? https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/
wellbeing/articles/lonelinesswhatcharacteristicsandcircumstancesareassociatedwithfeelinglonely/
2018-04-10 (2018).
Russell, D. W. UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): reliability, validity, and factor structure. J Pers Assess 66, 20–40, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2 (1996).
de Jong Gierveld, J. & van Tilburg, T. A shortened scale for overall, emotional and social loneliness. Tijdschr Gerontol Geriatr 39, 4–15, https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03078118 (2008).
Martín-María, N. et al. Differential impact of transient and chronic loneliness on health status. A longitudinal study. Psychol & Health 35, 177–195, https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2019.1632312 (2020).
Newall, N. E., Chipperfield, J. G. & Bailis, D. S. Predicting stability and change in loneliness in later life. J Soc Pers Relat 31, 335–351, https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407513494951 (2014).
Shiovitz-Ezra, S. & Ayalon, L. Situational versus chronic loneliness as risk factors for all-cause mortality. Int Psychogeriatrics 22, 455–462 (2010).
Zhong, B.-L., Chen, S.-L. & Conwell, Y. Effects of transient versus chronic loneliness on cognitive function in older adults: findings from the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 24, 389–398, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2015.12.009 (2016).
Matthews, T. et al. The developmental course of loneliness in adolescence: Implications for mental health, educational attainment, and psychosocial functioning. Dev Psychopathol, 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579421001632 (2022).
Wilkins, R., Laß, I., Butterworth, P. & Vera-Toscano, E. The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey: selected findings from waves 1 to 17. Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic & Social Research, University of Melbourne (2019).
Butterworth, P. & Crosier, T. The validity of the SF-36 in an Australian National Household Survey: demonstrating the applicability of the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey to examination of health inequalities. BMC Public Health 4, 44, https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-4-44 (2004).
Lau, S. & Gruen, G. E. The social stigma of loneliness: effect of target person's and perceiver's sex. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 18, 182–189, https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292182009 (1992).
Flood, M. Mapping Loneliness in Australia. The Australia Institute. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/DP76_8.pdf (2005)
Manera, K. E., Smith, B. J., Owen, K. B., Phongsavan, P. & Lim, M. H. Psychometric assessment of scales for measuring loneliness and social isolation: an analysis of the household, income and labour dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey. Health Qual Life Outcomes 20, 40, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-01946-6 (2022).
Becker, C. C. Migrants’ social integration and its relevance for national identification: an empirical comparison across three social spheres. Front Sociol 6, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.700580 (2022).
Sawir, E., Marginson, S., Deumert, A., Nyland, C. & Ramia, G. Loneliness and international students: an Australian study. J Stud Int Educ 12, 148–180, https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307299699 (2008).
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Census of population and housing: reflecting Australia - stories from the census, 2016. https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject/2071.0~2016~Main%20Features~Socio-Economic%20Advantage%20and%20Disadvantage~123 (2016).
Ending Loneliness Together. Ending loneliness together in Australia whitepaper https://endingloneliness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Ending-Loneliness-Together-in-Australia_Nov20.pdf (2020).
Borys, S. & Perlman, D. Gender differences in loneliness. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 11, 63–74, https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167285111006 (1985).
Dahlberg, L., Andersson, L., McKee, K. J. & Lennartsson, C. Predictors of loneliness among older women and men in Sweden: a national longitudinal study. Aging Ment Health 19, 409–417 (2015).
Pinquart, M. & Sorensen, S. Influences on loneliness in older adults: a meta-analysis. Basic App Soc Psychol 23, 245–266, https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2304_2 (2001).
Pinquart, M. Loneliness in married, widowed, divorced, and never-married older adults. J Soc Pers Relat 20, 31–53 (2003).
Lasgaard, M., Friis, K. & Shevlin, M. ‘‘Where are all the lonely people?’’ A population-based study of high-risk groups across the life span. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 51, 1373–1384, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-016-1279-3 (2016).
Chiu, M. et al. Self-rated health and mental health of lone fathers compared with lone mothers and partnered fathers: a population-based cross-sectional study. J Epidemiol Com Health 71, 417–423, https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2016-208005 (2017).
Chiu, M. et al. Mortality in single fathers compared with single mothers and partnered parents: a population-based cohort study. Lancet Pub Health 3, e115-e123, https://doi.org/10.1016/s2468-2667(18)30003-3 (2018).
Chen, W., Wu, S., Ling, L. & Renzaho, A. M. N. Impacts of social integration and loneliness on mental health of humanitarian migrants in Australia: evidence from a longitudinal study. Aust N Z J Pub Health 43, 46–55, https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12856 (2019).
Creed, P. A. & Reynolds, J. Economic deprivation, experiential deprivation and social loneliness in unemployed and employed youth. J. Comm Appl. Soc. Psychol. 11, 167–178, https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.612 (2001).
Kearns, A., Whitley, E., Tannahill, C. & Ellaway, A. Loneliness, social relations and health and well-being in deprived communities. Psychol Health Med 20, 332–344, https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2014.940354 (2014).
McCain, D., Morgan, A. A. & Wright, R. Associations between neighborhood SES disadvantage and feelings of depression and loneliness in older adults. Innov Aging 5, 917–917, https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igab046.3296 (2021).
Astell-Burt, T. et al. More green, less lonely? A longitudinal cohort study. Int J Epi, dyab089, https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyab089 (2021).
Christiansen, J. et al. Associations of loneliness and social isolation with physical and mental health among adolescents and young adults. Pers Pub Health 141, 226–236, https://doi.org/10.1177/17579139211016077 (2021).
Fernández-Alonso, A. M., Trabalón-Pastor, M., Vara, C., Chedraui, P. & Pérez-López, F. R. Life satisfaction, loneliness and related factors during female midlife. Maturitas 72, 88–92, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2012.02.001 (2012).
Shankar, A., McMunn, A., Banks, J. & Steptoe, A. Loneliness, social isolation, and behavioral and biological health indicators in older adults. Health Psychol 30, 377 (2011).
Schrempft, S., Jackowska, M., Hamer, M. & Steptoe, A. Associations between social isolation, loneliness, and objective physical activity in older men and women. BMC Pub Health 19, 74, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6424-y (2019).
Mutz, J., Roscoe, C. J. & Lewis, C. M. Exploring health in the UK Biobank: associations with sociodemographic characteristics, psychosocial factors, lifestyle and environmental exposures. BMC Med 19, 240, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-021-02097-z (2021).
Qualter, P. et al. Tackling loneliness evidence review: main report, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tackling-loneliness-evidence-review/tackling-loneliness-evidence-review-full-report (2022).
Stickley, A. & Koyanagi, A. Physical multimorbidity and loneliness: a population-based study. PLoS One 13, e0191651, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191651 (2018).
Beller, J. & Wagner, A. Disentangling loneliness: differential effects of subjective loneliness, network quality, network size, and living alone on physical, mental, and cognitive health. J Aging Health 0, 0898264316685843, https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264316685843 (2017).

Tables 1 to 2 are available in the Supplementary Files section

Competing interest reported. Dr Michelle H Lim and Professor Ben J Smith are part of the Scientific Advisory Committee of Ending Loneliness Together (non-financial competing interests). Dr Karine Manera, Dr Katherine Owen, and Associate Professor Philayrath Phongsavan declare no competing interests.

EpisodicChronicSILTables.docx

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 01 Aug, 2023

Read the published version in Scientific Reports →

Editorial decision: Major revision
14 Dec, 2022
Reviews received at journal
12 Dec, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
01 Dec, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
21 Nov, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
10 Nov, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
08 Nov, 2022
Editor invited by journal
06 May, 2022
Submission checks completed at journal
06 May, 2022
First submitted to journal
29 Apr, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Chronic and episodic loneliness and social isolation: prevalence and sociodemographic analyses from a longitudinal Australian survey

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Results

Prevalence of subtypes of loneliness and social isolation

INSERT FIGURE 1

Correlates of subtypes of loneliness and social isolation

INSERT Tables 1–2

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1