Skip to main content

Associations of Social Isolation with Anxiety and Depression During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey of Older Adults in London

The COVID-19 pandemic is imposing a profound negative impact on the health and wellbeing of societies and individuals, worldwide. One concern is the effect of social isolation as a result of social distancing on the mental health of vulnerable populations, including older people. Our findings were published in the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry.

Within six weeks of lockdown, we initiated the CHARIOT COVID-19 Rapid Response Study, a bespoke survey of cognitively healthy older people living in London, to investigate the impact of COVID-19 and associated social isolation on mental and physical wellbeing. The sample was drawn from CHARIOT, a register of people over 50 who have consented to be contacted for aging related research. A total of 7,127 men and women (mean age=70.7 [SD=7.4]) participated in the baseline survey, May–July 2020. Participants were asked about changes to the 14 components of the Hospital Anxiety Depression scale (HADS) after lockdown was introduced in the UK, on 23rd March. A total of 12.8% of participants reported feeling worse on the depression components of HADS (7.8% men and 17.3% women) and 12.3% reported feeling worse on the anxiety components (7.8% men and 16.5% women). Fewer participants reported feeling improved (1.5% for depression and 4.9% for anxiety). 

Women, younger participants, those single/widowed/divorced, reporting poor sleep, feelings of loneliness and who reported living alone were more likely to indicate feeling worse on both the depression and/or anxiety components of the HADS. There was a significant negative association between subjective loneliness and worsened components of both depression (OR 17.24, 95% CI 13.20, 22.50) and anxiety (OR 10.85, 95% CI 8.39, 14.03). Results may inform targeted interventions and help guide policy recommendations in reducing the effects of social isolation related to the pandemic, and beyond, on the mental health of older people.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.591120

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...
1 comment
Read more

Talking to Patients About Weight-Loss Drugs

The use of weight-loss drugs such as GLP-1 receptor agonists (e.g., semaglutide, tirzepatide) has increased rapidly in recent years. These drugs can help some people achieve significant weight reduction, but they are not suitable for everyone and require careful counselling before starting treatment. By discussing benefits, risks, practicalities, and  uncertainties, clinicians can help patients make informed, realistic decisions about their treatment. Key points to discuss with patients 1. Indications and eligibility These drugs are usually licensed for adults with a specific BMI. They should be used alongside lifestyle interventions such as dietary change, increased physical activity, and behaviour modification. 2. Potential side effects – some can be serious Common adverse effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and abdominal discomfort. Less common but more serious risks include gallstones, pancreatitis and visual problems. Patients should know what to watch for a...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abolishing NHS England will make only modest savings

Abolishing NHS England and reducing Integrated Care Board (ICB) staffing by 50% may appear substantial, but the projected savings - around £500 million annually if fully achieved - would represent only a modest increase (approximately 0.25%) in annual NHS funding in England, given the NHS England budget is approaching £200 billion per year. Evidence from past NHS reforms (like the 2012 Health and Social Care Act) shows mixed results; some efficiency gains but often offset by new layers of complexity elsewhere in NHS structures. Without parallel initiatives to streamline administrative processes, improve efficiency, and enhance clinical productivity, such structural changes to NHS England and ICBs alone will not significantly improve frontline clinical care or health outcomes. Administrative costs, while important to minimise, make up a relatively small proportion of the overall NHS budget. Genuine productivity gains will therefore require systematic reforms aimed at reducing unnecessar...
Post a Comment
Read more