| |
Centre for Policy on Ageing | |
 | |
|
The discrepancy between social isolation and loneliness as a clinically meaningful metric
— findings from the Irish and English longitudinal studies of ageing (TILDA and ELSA) | | Author(s) | J E McHugh |
| Journal title | International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, vol 32, no 6, June 2017 |
| Publisher | Wiley, June 2017 |
| Pages | pp 664-674 |
| Source | www.orangejournal.org |
| Keywords | Isolation [elderly] ; Loneliness ; Longitudinal surveys ; Ireland ; England. |
| Annotation | Scant evidence is available on the discordance between loneliness and social isolation among older adults. The authors aimed to investigate this discordance and any health implications that it may have. Using nationally representative datasets from ageing cohorts in Ireland (TILDA) and England (ELSA), they created a metric of discordance between loneliness and social isolation, which were referred to 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. The authors used regression and multilevel modelling to identify potential relationships between Social Asymmetry and cognitive outcomes. 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 the authors were unable to find evidence for Social Asymmetry as a predictor of cognitive trajectory over time. The authors 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. (JL). |
| Accession Number | CPA-170616241 A |
| Classmark | F:TP: DV: 3J: 763: 82 |
Data © Centre for Policy on Ageing |
|
| ...from the Ageinfo database published by Centre for Policy on Ageing. |
| |
|