CHRONIC VS. TEMPORARY

LONELINESS: SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC, HEALTH AND FAMILIAL CHARACTERISTICS

Dr. Sharon Shiovitz-EzraMr. Rafael NechemiaThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem

LONELINESS

Vs.

SOCIAL ISOLATION

PREVALENCE OF LONELINESS

Figure1. Percentage of SHARE participants reporting substantialLoneliness: almost all of the time or most of the time over the last week

* Adopted from Sundstrom, Fransson, Malmberg,& Davey, 2009 (based on SHARE wave1)

0

5

10

15

20

25

%

LONELINESS STATUS

Transient loneliness - reflects the most frequent appearance of the phenomenon, consequent upon common happenings and is limited by time

Situational loneliness occurs after experiencing stressful life events, such as widowhood, and is considered to be less detrimental and more temporal

chronic loneliness is a more stable state that results from the inability to develop significant social ties over time

OBJECTIVES

(1) to explore the prevalence of chronic versus temporary loneliness among older adults in Israel.

(2) to examine socio-demographic, health and familial correlates of chronically versus temporarily lonely people in Israel.

METHODS

The current analysis uses waves 1 & 2 of SHARE Israel.

The sample composed of respondents who

provided valid responses to the loneliness item in both waves.

This resulted in total in N=392

LONELINESS CATEGORIES

Respondents are classified in the "not lonely" category if reported not lonely in both waves; to the temporarily lonely category when reported lonely in only one wave and chronically lonely when repeatedly reported lonely in the 1 & 2 waves.

CHARACTERISTICS

Socio-demographic characteristics: age, gender, ethnicity (Jewish/not Jewish).

Health characteristics: self-rated health, chronic morbidity (2+ chronic illnesses/<2), Disability in IADL (1+/<1 ), Depression (Euro-D).

Familial characteristics: marital status (married/not married), parents still alive (yes/no), having siblings (yes/no), receive appreciation from family.

Gathered in the 2005-6 SHARE Israel wave.

FINDINGS: PREVALENCE

57%

FINDINGS: DEPRESSION-LONELINESS BIVARIATE ASSOCIATION

Not lonely Temporarily lonely Chronically lonely

FINDINGS FROM MULTINOMIAL REGRESSION

Model

1Model

2Model

3 Model

1Model

2Model

3

Age1.10**1.08**1.051.03***1.021.02

Jewish0.38***0.390.16**0.26*0.23***0.19***

Men0.4*0.601.030.59*0.700.81**

Depression1.69***1.80***1.24**1.24**

Self-rated health0.801.040.991.05

Chronic illness (2+)0.740.630.62+0.61+

Disability (IADL, 1+)2.94*2.041.811.63

Appreciation from family0.43**0.82

Have siblings0.440.77

Parents still alive1.791.05

Not living with a partner9.09***2.38*

Chronic Loneliness (n=32) Temporary Loneliness (n=136)

The reference group is “no reported loneliness” (n=224)Nagekerke R square: model 1 – 0.149, model 2 – 0.307, model 3 – 0.357

IMPLICATIONS

* The longitudinal SHARE Israel allows us to address and evaluate an under-examined typology that is nonetheless central to understanding loneliness.

* Differentiating between different types of a phenomenon such as loneliness encourages a more sensitive perspective.

* It can lead to the adoption of more suitable interventions that relate to the specific nature of the loneliness type.