social connections and wellbeing in later life
TRANSCRIPT
Social Connections and Wellbeing
in Later Life
19th February 2015
#socialconnections
Welcome
Paul CannAge-UK Oxfordshire
#socialconnections
Welcome
Professor Andrew SteptoeUniversity College London
#socialconnections
Dr Aparna ShankarUniversity College London
#socialconnections
Aparna Shankar, Snorri Bjorn Rafnsson & Andrew Steptoe
Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, UCL
Loneliness, social isolation and well-being over 6 years
Background
• Increasing move towards placing national wellbeing at the centre of policy-making (Stiglitz et al., 2009)
• Substantial differences in wellbeing across countries, particularly at older ages
• Given the increasing proportion of older adults, understanding factors affecting wellbeing among older adults is important
Wealthy English speaking countries Eastern Europe and FSUDeaton, 2010
Social connections
• Different dimensions of social relationships may be particularly relevant for wellbeing in older adults
• The relationship between social connections and wellbeing maybe complex in older age
(adapted from Victor &Yang, 2011)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
< 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 >= 75
%
Age in years
Male Always lonely
Female Always lonely
• Objective measure
• Relates to aspects of social network and diversity, frequency of contact participation in social activities, social engagement
• Measured using one of these dimensions or by an index
• Subjective measure
• Relates to (dis)satisfaction with existing relationships
• Measured using standard questionnaires
Social isolation
The English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA)
• Nationally representative panel study of individuals aged 50 years and over
• Started in 2002, with 11391 core sample members
• Participants are contacted every 2 years and complete an interview in person
• We now have 10 years worth of data (Waves 1 – 6) and data are currently being collected for wave 7
What do we ask participants?
• The interview covers a range of topics including household demographics, health, financial circumstances and cognitive function
• Participants also complete a questionnaire assessing wellbeing, social relationships, use of computers/the internet and how they spend their time
• Every other wave also includes a nurse visit with measures of physical performance and blood sampling
Social isolation in ELSA
• There are many ways of conceptualising social isolation
• We used a combined index with 1 point given for each of the following:
-- living alone
-- contacting family less than a month
-- contacting friends less than once a month
-- contacting children less than once a month
-- not participating in any social/community activities
• We classified people into 3 groups: low isolation, intermediate isolation and high isolation. This was measured only at the start of the study
Loneliness in ELSA• Again, many different measures are available
• We used the short form of the Revised UCLA scale
• We classified people as being lonely or not lonely. This was measured only at the start of the study
Wellbeing in ELSA We consider 2 main measures of wellbeing here
• Life satisfaction, which is an evaluation of life in general
• Enjoyment of life or how happy individuals feel at this point in time
Wellbeing was measured a 4 time points over a 6-year period (2004 – 2010)
Wellbeing over the 6 years
8
9
10
11
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Enjo
yme
nt
of
life
Years
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012Li
fe s
atis
fact
ion
Years
• Levels of wellbeing were generally high in participants
• Although there were some decreases initially, wellbeing increased with time
How does isolation affect wellbeing?
8
9
10
11
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Enjo
yme
nt
of
life
Years
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Life
sat
isfa
ctio
n
Years
• Individuals with low and intermediate levels of isolation had higher levels of wellbeing that those in the high isolation group; they also showed expected increases with time
• The low isolation group showed sustained decreases in enjoyment of life and only small increases in life satisfaction with time
Low isolation Intermediate isolation
High isolation
How does loneliness affect wellbeing?
8
9
10
11
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Enjo
yme
nt
of
life
Years
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012Li
fe s
atis
fact
ion
Years
• The low loneliness group showed consistently higher levels of wellbeing when compared with the high loneliness group
Not lonely Lonely
Summary of findings
• Individuals with who were less lonely had consistently higher levels of wellbeing when compared with those who were more lonely
• High levels of isolation were associated with sustained decreases in enjoyment of life over the 6-year period
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council Secondary Data Analysis Initiative [Grant number ES/K003178/1].
Thank you!
Dr Snorri RafnssonUniversity College London
#socialconnections
Social networks and subjective wellbeing over 6 years: The ELSA Study
Dr. Snorri Bjorn Rafnsson, Dr. Aparna Shankar &
Professor Andrew Steptoe
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London
Background
• There is growing interest in subjective wellbeing outcomes and their determinants in ageing populations
• Good social connections are consistently related to better health and wellbeing among older adults
• There is limited longitudinal research examining different dimensions of social networks and their influence on wellbeing in later life
Aim of study
To investigate the relationship between specific social network characteristicsand future wellbeing levels among older men and women participating in the ELSA study
Data on social networks and subjective wellbeing in ELSA
• Social network dimensions (at ELSA Wave 2 = baseline)
1. Diversity: reflects the presence of children, other family or friends
2. Size: reflects number of relations with children, other family or friends
3. Contact frequency: reflects frequency of contact with children, other family or friends
• Subjective wellbeing domains (at baseline & 6-years later)
1. Life satisfaction: “An individual’s judgement of his satisfaction with life according to his chosen criteria”.
2. Quality of life: “Individual’s functioning in life as well as realisation of one’s potential”.
Quality of life at baseline and 6 years later bysocial network diversity
Baseline
Follow-up
Quality of life at baseline and 6 years later bysocial network size
Baseline
Follow-up
Quality of life at baseline and 6 years later bysocial network contact frequency
Baseline
Follow-up
Summary of findings & conclusions
– Social network size and contact frequency were positively and independently related to future levels of subjective wellbeing in later life
– Having multiple social ties may provide a larger pool from which to obtain assistance with various tasks or problems i.e. social support
– The role of close relationships and frequent contact in later life may be important for sustaining wellbeing levels as people grow older
Social networks and subjective wellbeing over 6 years: The ELSA Study
Contact information:Dr. Snorri Bjorn RafnssonDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London Email: [email protected]
Baseline variables Sample (n=4116)
Age 63.1 (7.1)
Females 55.2%
SWLS scale score (0-30) 21.0 (6.2)
CASP19 scale score (0-57) 41.5 (8.7)
Network diversity (0-3)-Lowest (0-1)-Middle (=2)-Highest (=3)
2.2%20.0%77.8%
Network size (0-30)-Lowest (<5)-Middle (5-8)-Highest (>8)
27.7%43.1%29.2%
Contact frequency (0-18)-Lowest (<6)-Middle (6-9)-Highest (>9)
26.6%42.5%31.0%
Social network characteristics
Life satisfaction Quality of life
Network diversity-Lowest-Middle-Highest
Baseline20.120.421.9
Follow-up19.919.821.4
Baseline41.442.744.1
Follow-up38.840.041.9
Network size-Lowest-Middle-Highest
19.821.922.7
19.621.322.0
41.444.245.3
39.241.943.0
Contact frequency-Lowest-Middle-Highest
20.121.722.5
19.821.121.9
42.244.144.9
39.741.742.8
All linear trends statistically significant with p-values ranging from <0.05 to P<0.001
Social network characteristics
Life satisfaction Quality of lifeB 95% CI B 95% CI
Network diversity-Lowest-Middle-Highest
Ref.-1.29-1.04
--2.97, 0.39-2.72, 0.64
Ref.-1.22-0.95
--3.29, 0.85-3.01, 1.12
Network size-Lowest-Middle-Highest
Ref.0.20
0.90**
--0.36, 0.770.26, 1.54
Ref.0.46
0.98*
--0.24, 1.150.19, 1.77
Contact frequency-Lowest-Middle-Highest
Ref.0.59
0.82*
--0.00, 1.170.14, 1.50
Ref.1.19**1.18**
-0.47, 1.190.35, 2.01
Adjusted for baseline age, sex, either SWLS or CASP19 score, relationship status, education, work participation, wealth and longstanding limiting illness. *P<0.05; **P<0.01
Emotional wellbeing of older caregivers: Findings from the ELSA study
Dr. Snorri Bjorn Rafnsson, Dr. Aparna Shankar &
Professor Andrew Steptoe
Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, University College London
Background
• Almost 1.2 million people aged 65 or older in England provided informal care in 2011; Approximately 56% of older carers were female
• Caregiving often involves diverse responsibilities and can be a stressful experience
• Associations between poor psychological and physical health and being an informal caregiver are well established
• Informal caregiving has been described as “a career” but there is limited longitudinal research investigating specific caregiving role transitions and their impact on wellbeing
Main study objectives
To determine the longitudinal relationships between major (excl. grandparenting) caregiving transitions and positive and negative emotional wellbeing among older men and women participating in the ELSA study
Questions on informal caregiving in ELSA
Asked question: ‘Did you do any of the following activities last month (i.e. cared for someone)?’
Yes Missing No
Asked question: ‘Did you look after someone in the past week (including your partner or other people in your household)?’
By ‘look after’ we mean active provision of care
Yes No Missing
Emotional wellbeing
1. Life satisfaction: Assessed using the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). Based on adding 5 individual scale items such as: If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing
2. Quality of life: Determined using CASP-19 which taps four domains: “Control”, “autonomy”, “pleasure” and “self-realisation”. Example: I feel free to plan for the future
3. Depression symptoms: Assessed with the 8-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale (CES-D). Example: How much of the time during the past week did you feel depressed?
Quality of life at baseline and 2 years later bytype of caregiving transition - WOMEN
Baseline
Follow-up
Depression at baseline and 2 years later bytype of caregiving transition - WOMEN
BaselineFollow-
up
Summary of findings & conclusions
• Among older women, long-term caregiving may steadily erode quality of life and increase feelings such as not being in control of one’s life
• Cessation of caregiving responsibilities may also be associated with emotional distress around the time carers leave this role
• These findings highlight the importance of supporting carers during different stages of their caregiving “career”.
Emotional wellbeing of older caregivers: Findings from the ELSA study
Contact information:Dr. Snorri Bjorn RafnssonDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London Email: [email protected]
Methods
• ELSA Study sample
– 3007 men and 3564 women aged 50 years and older
• Data collection
– Baseline in 2004/5 (Wave 2) and 2-year follow-up in 2006/7 (Wave 3)
• Informal caregiving
– Respondents asked at each time about whether they actively provided informal care
– Participants taking care of grandchildren were excluded from the analysis (n=224)
– Caregiving transitions: (1) No caregiving; (2) Entry into caregiving; (3) Exit from caregiving; (4) Consistent caregiving
ELSA C1CM sample at Wave 2Characteristics Study sample (n=8780)
Age, % (n)50-5960-6970-7980+
29.6% (2597)32.7% (2874)24.9% (2188)12.8% (1121)
Sex, % women (n) 55.0% (4831)
Provided informal care last week, % (n)YesNo
11.2% (954)88.8% (7548)
Life satisfaction (0-30), mean (SD) 21.2 (6.2)
Depression symptoms (0-8)Mean (SD)CES-D score ≥4, % (n)
1.5 (2.0)15.6% (1353)
Carers versus non-carers at Wave 2Characteristics Carers (n=954)† Non-carers (n=7548)
Age, %
50-59 37.5% 28.2%
60-69 35.4% 32.1%
70-79 22.6% 25.5%
80+ 4.4% 14.2%
Sex, %
Men 32.5% 47.0%
Women 67.5% 53.0%
†Includes all types of caregiving
SWB by type of care relationship at Wave 2
Caregiving typeN
Life SatisfactionMean (SD)
CES-DMean (SD)
CES-D% ≥4
Non-carer 7826 21.3 (6.2) 1.5 (2.0) 15.9%
Grandparenting 138 22.5 (5.4) 0.8 (1.1) 2.2%
Spouse/partner 315 20.2 (6.5) 1.8 (2.0) 16.2%
Child 72 19.1 (7.5) 2.0 (2.1) 19.4%
Parent/parent-in-law
252 21.1 (5.8) 1.4 (1.9) 12.7%
Other relative/ friend/ neighbour
166 21.6 (6.2) 1.5 (1.8) 12.7%
Characteristics†N
Life SatisfactionMean (SD)
CES-DMean (SD)
CES-D% ≥4
Number of personsNon-carer 1 person>1 person
7826713231
21.3 (6.2)20.9 (6.1)21.0 (6.5)
1.5 (2.0)1.6 (1.9)1.3 (1.8)
15.9%13.6%10.8%
Hours of care (week)Non-carer<20 hours20-49 hours50-167 hours168 hours
782648816755
218
21.3 (6.2)21.8 (5.5)20.9 (6.8)20.2 (6.5)19.1 (6.9)
1.5 (2.0)1.3 (1.8)1.4 (1.8)1.7 (1.8)2.0 (2.1)
15.9%10.2%12.0%14.5%19.7%
Lives with personNon-carerYesNo
7826404539
21.3 (6.2)19.8 (6.7)21.7 (5.8)
1.5 (2.0)1.8 (2.0)1.3 (1.7)
15.9%16.3%10.4%
SWB and level of care at Wave 2
†Includes all types of caregiving
SWB and subjective appraisal of caregiving at Wave 2
Characteristics†N
Life SatisfactionMean (SD)
CES-DMean (SD)
CES-D% ≥4
Why provides care?Non-carerObliged/is neededOther reasons
7826652301
21.3 (6.2)20.8 (6.1)21.4 (6.2)
1.5 (2.0)1.5 (1.9)1.4 (1.8)
15.9%13.3%12.0%
Has gained from caring for others?Non-carerAgreesDisagrees
78261115
78
21.3 (6.2)21.3 (6.0)18.8 (7.6)
1.5 (2.0)1.4 (1.8)1.7 (2.2)
15.9%11.9%15.4%
Feels appreciated for caring for others?Non-carerAgreesDisagrees
78261069138
21.3 (6.2)21.3 (6.0)19.3 (6.7)
1.5 (2.0)1.3 (1.7)2.2 (2.3)
15.9%10.6%25.4%
†Includes all types of caregiving
2-year changes in SWB by type of caregiving transition
Characteristics†N
W2 Life SatisfactionMean (SD)
W3 Life SatisfactionMean (SD)
Age & sex adjusted
B (SE)
Age, sex & LS W2 adjusted
B (SE)
Carer at Wave 2YesNo
8017478
20.7 (6.3)21.2 (6.2)
--
--
--
Carer at Wave 3YesNo
6006213
--
19.8 (6.9)20.0 (6.3)
--
--
Wave 2 to Wave 3 transitionsConsistent non-carerEntry to caregivingExit from caregivingConsistent carer
5657310373258
21.3 (6.1)21.2 (6.4)20.7 (5.9)20.6 (6.9)
20.0 (6.4)20.4 (6.6)19.8 (6.4)18.9 (7.3)
Ref.0.34 (0.41)-0.09 (0.38)
-0.92 (0.44)*
Ref.0.28 (0.29)0.25 (0.27)-0.42 (0.31)
†Excludes participants caring for grandchildren at Wave 2 or Wave 3*P<0.05
WOMENBaseline characteristics
No caregiving
Caregivingentry
Long term caregiving
Caregivingexit
Age50-59 (ref.)70-79
77.9%85.3%***
6.5%4.3%*
7.0%4.1%**
8.7%6.2%*
Marital statusNot married (ref.)Married
91.0%78.9%***
2.5%6.5%***
2.3%6.5%***
4.1%8.2%***
EducationNo qualification (ref.)Degree
87.0%81.8%*
3.6%7.0%***
3.8%5.2%
5.5%7.5%*
Work participationNot working (ref.)Working
85.3%80.0%***
4.2%6.5%**
4.8%4.5%
5.7%9.0%**
WealthLowest quintile (ref.)Highest quintile
85.5%81.3%*
4.9%5.2%
4.3%5.1%
5.2%8.4%*
Longstanding illnessNo (ref.)Yes
82.9%85.7%*
4.8%4.8%
5.2%4.0%
7.1%5.5%
WOMEN -Caregiving transitions
Quality of life Depression
B 95% CI OR 95% CI
-No Caregiving
-Caregiving entry
-Long term caregiving
-Caregiving exit
Ref.
-0.16
-1.21*
0.08
-
-1.17, 0.84
-2.20, -0.22
-0.79, 0.95
1.0
0.86
1.21
1.54*
-
0.53, 1.42
0.21, 1.89
1.05, 2.26
Multiple linear regression models adjusting for baseline age, Quality of Life or depression, marital status, education, work participation, wealth and longstanding limiting illness.
*P<0.05
Panel Responses
Chris Sherwood, Relate
Andy Kaye, Independent Age
Laura Alcock-Ferguson, Campaign to End
Loneliness
Emily Holzhausen, Carers UK
#socialconnections
Open Discussion
Chaired by Paul CannAge-UK Oxfordshire
#socialconnections
Social Connections and Wellbeing
in Later Life
19th February 2015
#socialconnections