Search

This paper considers the support networks of older people in populations with a preponderance of multigenerational households and examines the most vulnerable network types in terms of loneliness and isolation. Current common typologies of support networks may not be sensitive to differences within and between different cultures. This paper uses cross-sectional data drawn from 590 elders (Gujaratis, Punjabis and Sylhetis) living in the United Kingdom and South Asia. Six variables were used in K-means cluster analysis to establish a new network typology. Two logistic regression models using loneliness and isolation as dependent variables assessed the contribution of the new network type to wellbeing. Four support networks were identified: ‘Multigenerational Households: Older Integrated Networks’, ‘Multigenerational Households: Younger Family Networks’, ‘Family and Friends Integrated Networks’ and ‘Non-kin Restricted Networks’. Older South Asians with ‘Non-kin Restricted Networks’ were more likely to be lonely and isolated compared to others. Using network typologies developed with individualistically oriented cultures, distributions are skewed towards more robust network types and could underestimate the support needs of older people from familistic cultures, who may be isolated and lonely and with limited informal sources of help. The new typology identifies different network types within multigenerational households, identifies a greater proportion of older people with vulnerable networks and could positively contribute to service planning. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper examines the relationships between self-reported loneliness and living arrangements. A structured questionnaire with some open-ended questions was administered face-to-face in English, Hindi or Punjabi to a sample of 161 elderly South Asian immigrants 60 or more years of age living in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada in 2003. The majority of respondents said that they never felt lonely. More than one in three (37.3%) respondents indicated that they felt lonely occasionally, frequently or all of the time. Those living alone were significantly more likely to report feeling lonely at least occasionally than were those living with others, especially those living with their spouse in an extended family. The fact that South Asian immigrant seniors typically lived with others, often in an extended family with or without their spouse, and rarely lived alone protected them to some extent from loneliness. However, our findings showed that among those living with others, it was the amount of waking time spent alone at home and the quality of family relationships rather than living arrangement per se that significantly predicted self-reported loneliness. Nevertheless, living in a larger household was associated with spending less time alone. We discuss plausible influences of culture on expectations regarding family and social relationships and on the meaning of being alone, as well as practical implications for addressing loneliness in a multi-cultural society. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper considers the support networks of older people in populations with a preponderance of multigenerational households and examines the most vulnerable network types in terms of loneliness and isolation. Current common typologies of support networks may not be sensitive to differences within and between different cultures. This paper uses cross-sectional data drawn from 590 elders (Gujaratis, Punjabis and Sylhetis) living in the United Kingdom and South Asia. Six variables were used in K-means cluster analysis to establish a new network typology. Two logistic regression models using loneliness and isolation as dependent variables assessed the contribution of the new network type to wellbeing. Four support networks were identified: ‘Multigenerational Households: Older Integrated Networks’, ‘Multigenerational Households: Younger Family Networks’, ‘Family and Friends Integrated Networks’ and ‘Non-kin Restricted Networks’. Older South Asians with ‘Non-kin Restricted Networks’ were more likely to be lonely and isolated compared to others. Using network typologies developed with individualistically oriented cultures, distributions are skewed towards more robust network types and could underestimate the support needs of older people from familistic cultures, who may be isolated and lonely and with limited informal sources of help. The new typology identifies different network types within multigenerational households, identifies a greater proportion of older people with vulnerable networks and could positively contribute to service planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Loneliness (inclusive social loneliness and emotional loneliness) of older adults is a prominent public health issue internationally. Factors consistently associated with loneliness are age, gender, education, living arrangements, social network, and functional status. Intergenerational co‐living with spouse and adult children is important for the exchange of social, emotional, practical, and financial support provided to older adults. Co‐living with migrant domestic workers (MDWs) to care for older adults became an emergent phenomenon internationally, particularly in Asian countries. According to the convoy model of social relations, the effect of co‐living with MDWs on older adults' loneliness is unknown. This study examined (1) the prevalence of loneliness among community‐dwelling older adults; and (2) the association between co‐living with MDWs and older adult loneliness. Using the Chinese version of the 6‐item De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale on loneliness, 380 older adults were interviewed at busy points in Hong Kong, including subway stations. 35.3% of older adults experienced moderate‐to‐severe loneliness. Linear regression was performed to examine the association between co‐living with MDWs and loneliness. The results showed that co‐living with MDWs was significantly associated with lower levels of overall loneliness (β = −0.636; p =.022) and emotional loneliness (β = −0.298, p =.039), but not for social loneliness (β = −0.337, p =.084). While MDWs could be an attachment figure for older adults, they might not be effective in promoting the social integration of older adults. There is a need to investigate the barriers of social integration faced by older adults co‐living with MDWs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]