ISOLATION
Research into isolation, linked to loneliness has increased in the last ten years. Much of the debate of course focuses on the measurement of these two issues. Isolation is relatively easy to measure by assessing the number of contacts an individual has, either by questionnaire or by asking individuals to keep a diary of their contacts. Research into the effects of isolation is more difficult because isolation is often associated with other problems notably disabling conditions that limit mobility. Thus in studying depression among people who are isolated it is important to take into the account the fact that depression is a common consequence of a long term health problem or, in the case of people who are isolated, a number of long term health problems.
This also creates problems trying to assess the effects of reducing isolation. In the short term the effect on getting someone to a lunch club or a concert can be measured but as with all research of this type long term studies are difficult to organise and to find funding for the research.
There are however good measures of social contact and in particular different types of social contact with growing interest in measuring the effect of increasing digital contacts, either one to one contacts, or being a member of a virtual group or enjoying the full effect of virtual reality. These are all topics of interest and knowledge is emerging about the importance of isolation, now seen as an important risk factor for dementia in its own right. The effect of loneliness on mood is of great importance, with depression being another risk factor for dementia. Encouragingly, the beneficial effects of reducing isolation are now being demonstrated
Social network contact was assessed six times (1985–88, 1989–90, 1991–94, 1997–99, 2002–04, 2012–13). Participants
completed four ordinal self-rated questions, adapted from the Berkman–Syme social network index [15], about the number and
frequency of contact with relatives and friends. Participants were asked 1) ‘do you have any friends or acquaintances you visit or
who visit you? (Not necessarily the same person each time)’, 2) ‘how many friends or acquaintances do you see once a month or
more?’, 3) ‘are there any relatives outside your household whom you regularly visit or who visit you? (Not necessarily the same
person each time)’, and 4) ‘how many relatives do you see once a month or more?’
All questions had five possible response options: ‘Never/almost never’, ‘Once every few months’, ‘About monthly’, ‘About weekly’,
and ‘Almost daily’ for questions 1 and 3; ‘None’, 1–2, 3–5, 6–10, and >10 for questions 2 and 4. We generated social contact
variables by combining responses from all questions (on a scale of 0–16) and those for friends (0–8) and relatives (0–8). These
measures previously showed association with increased mortality risk [15] and worse cognition [16].
Association of social contact with dementia and cognition:
28-year follow-up of the Whitehall II cohort study
Andrew Sommerlad et al (2019)
Published: August 2, 2019 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002862
Research into isolation, linked to loneliness has increased in the last ten years. Much of the debate of course focuses on the measurement of these two issues. Isolation is relatively easy to measure by assessing the number of contacts an individual has, either by questionnaire or by asking individuals to keep a diary of their contacts. Research into the effects of isolation is more difficult because isolation is often associated with other problems notably disabling conditions that limit mobility. Thus in studying depression among people who are isolated it is important to take into the account the fact that depression is a common consequence of a long term health problem or, in the case of people who are isolated, a number of long term health problems.
This also creates problems trying to assess the effects of reducing isolation. In the short term the effect on getting someone to a lunch club or a concert can be measured but as with all research of this type long term studies are difficult to organise and to find funding for the research.
There are however good measures of social contact and in particular different types of social contact with growing interest in measuring the effect of increasing digital contacts, either one to one contacts, or being a member of a virtual group or enjoying the full effect of virtual reality. These are all topics of interest and knowledge is emerging about the importance of isolation, now seen as an important risk factor for dementia in its own right. The effect of loneliness on mood is of great importance, with depression being another risk factor for dementia. Encouragingly, the beneficial effects of reducing isolation are now being demonstrated
Social network contact was assessed six times (1985–88, 1989–90, 1991–94, 1997–99, 2002–04, 2012–13). Participants
completed four ordinal self-rated questions, adapted from the Berkman–Syme social network index [15], about the number and
frequency of contact with relatives and friends. Participants were asked 1) ‘do you have any friends or acquaintances you visit or
who visit you? (Not necessarily the same person each time)’, 2) ‘how many friends or acquaintances do you see once a month or
more?’, 3) ‘are there any relatives outside your household whom you regularly visit or who visit you? (Not necessarily the same
person each time)’, and 4) ‘how many relatives do you see once a month or more?’
All questions had five possible response options: ‘Never/almost never’, ‘Once every few months’, ‘About monthly’, ‘About weekly’,
and ‘Almost daily’ for questions 1 and 3; ‘None’, 1–2, 3–5, 6–10, and >10 for questions 2 and 4. We generated social contact
variables by combining responses from all questions (on a scale of 0–16) and those for friends (0–8) and relatives (0–8). These
measures previously showed association with increased mortality risk [15] and worse cognition [16].
Association of social contact with dementia and cognition:
28-year follow-up of the Whitehall II cohort study
Andrew Sommerlad et al (2019)
Published: August 2, 2019 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002862