Dataset Information

Loneliness and social isolation among the older person in a Swiss secure institution: a qualitative study

ABSTRACT:

Background

A pandemic of loneliness is hitting the aging population. As COVID19 forced us to isolate ourselves, we are in a better position to understand consequences of social distancing. The recent literature showed that older incarcerated adults are particularly at risk of health-related complications due to isolation in the prison environment, reducing their social capital. Mental and physical health can be severely affected by loneliness and social isolation, especially in prison.

Methods

Our qualitative study investigates the view of older persons deprieved of their liberty on loneliness and social isolation pertaining to their mental health. We interviewed 57 older participants, including imprisoned individuals and forensic patients, following a semi-structured interview guide. During the data management and data analysis process, we excluded 7 interviews which were of poorer quality. Thereafter, we analyzed the remainders following a thematic approach.

Results

Most interviewees experience loneliness following lack of significant human relationships in prison. Making friends appears to be a challenge for all the participants, because, for one thing, they do not find people with similar interests. Also, secure institution setting aggravates isolation due to the restrictions of movement placed such as rules concerning movement between floors, hindering intimate relationship, and separation between friends. Moreover, contact with prison personnel is limited and lack social capital (e.g. trust).

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this study is one of the first to present incarcerated persons’ perspective on loneliness, social isolation and poor social capital in the Swiss prison setting. These has been reported to cause health problems both somatic and psychological. Our participants experience these deleterious factors in detention. As prisons have the possibility to become a health-promoting environment through connectedness, friendship, and trust promotion, stakeholders need to better their social capital.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-022-02764-7.

SUBMITTER: Pageau F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8806358 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBefriending is a popular way in which to intervene to combat loneliness and social isolation among older people. However, there is a need to improve our understanding about how these interventions work, for whom and in which contexts, to make the best use of the increasing investment in the provision and delivery of befriending services.MethodsA realist evaluation was undertaken as it focuses on uncovering causal processes and interactions between mechanisms and contextual characteristics. Five case studies of befriending programmes in Northern Ireland were studied, reflecting variation in contextual variables, service user and provider characteristics. Data was collected via service documentation and semi-structured interviews (n = 46) with stakeholders involved in the delivery and receipt of befriending interventions.ResultsEight initial programme theories were generated, which were 'tested' in the case study analysis to uncover context-mechanism-outcome relationships. Mechanisms identified included reciprocity, empathy, autonomy, and privacy which were triggered in different contexts to support the alleviation of loneliness and social isolation. Reciprocity was 'triggered' in contexts where service users and befrienders shared characteristics, the befriender was a volunteer and befriending took the form of physical companionship. Contexts characterised in terms of shared experiences between befriender and service user triggered empathy. Autonomy was triggered in contexts where befriending relationships were delivered long-term and did not focus on a pre-defined set of priorities. Privacy was triggered in contexts where service users had a cognitive/sensory impairment and received one-to-one delivery.ConclusionThis study improves understanding about how and why befriending interventions work. Findings indicate that services should be tailored to the needs of service users and take into consideration characteristics including mobility, impairments e.g. physical, sensory and/or cognitive, as well as the influence of service characteristics including payment for befrienders, fixed/long-term befriending relationship, one-to-one support and the impact of non-verbal communication via face-to-face delivery.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Loneliness and social isolation are growing public health concerns in our ageing society. Whilst these experiences occur across the life span, 50% of individuals aged over 60 are at risk of social isolation and one-third will experience some degree of loneliness later in life. The aim of this scoping review was to describe the range of interventions to reduce loneliness and social isolation among older adults that have been evaluated; in terms of intervention conceptualisation, categorisation, and components. METHODS:Three electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase and Medline) were systematically searched for relevant published reviews of interventions for loneliness and social isolation. Inclusion criteria were: review of any type, published in English, a target population of older people and reported data on the categorisation of loneliness and/or social isolation interventions. Data extracted included: categories of interventions and the reasoning underpinning this categorisation. The methodology framework proposed by Arskey and O'Malley and further developed by Levac, et al. was used to guide the scoping review process. RESULTS:A total of 33 reviews met the inclusion criteria, evaluating a range of interventions targeted at older people residing in the community or institutionalised settings. Authors of reviews included in this paper often used the same terms to categorise different intervention components and many did not provide a clear definition of these terms. There were inconsistent meanings attributed to intervention characteristics. Overall, interventions were commonly categorised on the basis of: 1) group or one-to-one delivery mode, 2) the goal of the intervention, and 3) the intervention type. Several authors replicated the categorisation system used in previous reviews. CONCLUSION:Many interventions have been developed to combat loneliness and social isolation among older people. The individuality of the experience of loneliness and isolation may cause difficulty in the delivery of standardised interventions. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to addressing loneliness or social isolation, and hence the need to tailor interventions to suit the needs of individuals, specific groups or the degree of loneliness experienced. Therefore, future research should be aimed at discerning what intervention works for whom, in what particular context and how.