Increased prevalence of loneliness and associated risk factors during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Older adults have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 and related preventative measures undertaken during the pandemic. Given clear evidence of the relationship between loneliness and health outcomes, it is imperative to better understand if, and how, loneliness has changed for older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic, and whom it has impacted most. Method We used “pre-pandemic” data collected between 2015–2018 (n = 44,817) and “during pandemic” data collected between Sept 29-Dec 29, 2020 (n = 24,114) from community-living older adults participating in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging. Loneliness was measured using the 3-item UCLA Loneliness Scale. Weighted generalized estimating equations estimated the prevalence of loneliness pre-pandemic and during the pandemic. Lagged logistic regression models examined individual-level factors associated with loneliness during the pandemic. Results We found the adjusted prevalence of loneliness increased to 50.5% (95% CI: 48.0%-53.1%) during the pandemic compared to 30.75% (95% CI: 28.72%-32.85%) pre-pandemic. Loneliness increased more for women (22.3% vs. 17.0%), those in urban areas (20.8% vs. 14.6%), and less for those 75 years and older (16.1% vs. 19.8% or more in all other age groups). Loneliness during the pandemic was strongly associated with pre-pandemic loneliness (aOR 4.87; 95% CI 4.49–5.28) and individual level sociodemographic factors [age < 55 vs. 75 + (aOR 1.41; CI 1.23–1.63), women (aOR 1.34; CI 1.25–1.43), and no post-secondary education vs. post-secondary education (aOR 0.73; CI 0.61–0.86)], living conditions [living alone (aOR 1.39; CI 1.27–1.52) and urban living (aOR 1.18; CI 1.07–1.30)], health status [depression (aOR 2.08; CI 1.88–2.30) and having two, or ≥ three chronic conditions (aOR 1.16; CI 1.03–1.31 and aOR 1.34; CI 1.20–1.50)], health behaviours [regular drinker vs. non-drinker (aOR 1.15; CI 1.04–1.28)], and pandemic-related factors [essential worker (aOR 0.77; CI 0.69–0.87), and spending less time alone than usual on weekdays (aOR 1.32; CI 1.19–1.46) and weekends (aOR 1.27; CI 1.14–1.41) compared to spending the same amount of time alone]. Conclusions As has been noted for various other outcomes, the pandemic did not impact all subgroups of the population in the same way with respect to loneliness. Our results suggest that public health measures aimed at reducing loneliness during a pandemic should incorporate multifactor interventions fostering positive health behaviours and consider targeting those at high risk for loneliness.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».