CHAPTER SEVEN LONELINESS
Change over time
7.1 Respondents were asked at both Wave 1 and Wave 3 'how often they felt lonely at present', and given optional answers of: never, rarely, occasionally, sometimes and often. Broadly, at both Waves, around a fifth of people were lonely at least sometimes, including 7% who were lonely 'often'.
7.2 Table 7.1 shows that loneliness was higher among the Intervention Group at Wave 1. Across both groups, loneliness was higher among women (23%) and those people not working (23%), and lowest among older people (15%) and people who were long-term residents of over 20 year (12%).
7.3 Over time, loneliness dropped very slightly in both groups; by Wave 3 the prevalence of loneliness was 6 percentage points higher among the Intervention Group than the Control Group. However, there was no significant change over time in the relative prevalence of loneliness in the 2 study groups.
Table 7.1 Change in loneliness
| Wave 1 | Wave 3 |
|---|
N | % lonely sometimes or often | N | % lonely sometimes or often | Odds ratio for feeling lonely in Wave 3 | Odds ratio for feeling lonely in Wave 3 adjusted for Wave 1 loneliness |
|---|
Control | 388 | 19.1 | 284 | 17.3 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
|---|
Intervention | 332 | 24.4 | 261 | 23.0 | 1.43 (0.94, 2.18) | 1.32 (0.86, 2.04) |
|---|
P value | | 0.08 | | | 0.10 | 0.20 |
|---|
Loneliness and dwelling changes
7.4 If we examine changes in the prevalence of loneliness according to the sort of dwelling transitions experienced by Intervention Group members (Table 7.2), we see that people living in houses at Wave 3 had the lowest prevalence of loneliness, and loneliness was higher among those people living in flats. The increase in loneliness was highest for people who moved from a house to a flat.
Table 7.2 Change in loneliness by dwelling type transition (Intervention Group only)
Dwelling type transition | N lonely sometimes or often (yes / no) | Odds ratio for feeling lonely in Wave 3 | Odds ratio for feeling lonely in Wave 3 adjusted for Wave 1 loneliness |
|---|
Flat ? House | 22 / 96 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
|---|
Flat ? Flat | 22 / 47 | 2.04 (1.03, 4.06) | 2.02 (0.99, 4.10) |
|---|
House ? House | 7 / 45 | 0.68 (0.27, 1.71) | 0.64 (0.25, 1.64) |
|---|
House ? Flat | 8 / 11 | 3.17 (1.14, 8.81) | 3.70 (1.29, 10.64) |
|---|
P | | 0.01 | 0.01 |
|---|
7.5 Further analysis indicated that problems of loneliness were reduced more amongst those people in the Intervention Group who reported less problems with safety and security in and around the home by Wave 3 (see Table 7.3) 20. Thus, where people feel more able to go out as a result of improvements in access to the home (should they have mobility problems) or reductions in worries about the security of the home, reductions in loneliness may result.
Table 7.3 Effect of change in dwelling safety on change in loneliness (Intervention Group)
Loneliness | Dwelling safety Change (Wave 1 to Wave 3) |
|---|
Gain | No gain / loss |
|---|
Better | 25 (41.0%) | 56 (28.3%) |
|---|
No change | 19 (31.2%) | 85 (42.9%) |
|---|
Worse | 17 (17.9%) | 57 (28.8%) |
|---|
TOTAL | 61 (100%) | 198 (100%) |
|---|
Note to table: P=0.13
Change by location
7.6 At Wave 3, loneliness was more common among those people who had Relocated than among Non-Relocators (28.2% vs 16.8%, p=0.03). Thus, moving neighbourhood as well as house may be a source of difficulty for a minority of people.
Loneliness and community cohesion
7.7 Of the social changes investigated, only perceived community cohesion had a consistent relationship with changes in reported loneliness (see Table 7.4). Where Intervention Group respondents reported a greater sense of community cohesion at Wave 3 compared with Wave 1 (third column of table), they were also more likely to report a reduction ( i.e. better) in loneliness, and less likely to report a worsening of loneliness.
Table 7.4 Effect of change in community cohesion on change in loneliness (Intervention Group)
Loneliness | Cohesion Change (Wave 1 to Wave 3) |
|---|
Less/No Change | More |
|---|
Better | 28 (23.9%) | 53 (37.3%) |
|---|
No change | 50 (42.7%) | 53 (37.3%) |
|---|
Worse | 39 (33.3%) | 36 (25.4%) |
|---|
TOTAL | 117 (100%) | 142 (100%) |
|---|
Note to table: P=0.06
Summary
- Loneliness was more common among the Intervention Group at Wave 1 (a gap of 5%) and this was still the case at Wave 3 (a gap of 6%).
- Among the Intervention Group at Wave 3, loneliness was far more common among those people who had moved neighbourhood, indicating a source of potential difficulty for a minority of those rehoused. On the other hand, where people reported an increase in their sense of community cohesion, they were also more likely to report improvements in loneliness.
- The prevalence of loneliness was lowest at Wave 3, and the reduction in loneliness greatest, among those living in houses rather than flats after rehousing. There is some indication that moving from a house to a flat is associated with a worsening of loneliness.
- Loneliness improved more among those people who reported gains in the accessibility and security of their homes. Perhaps these improvements enabled them to go out more and leave their home, both physically and psychologically.