Social Connectedness: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Jessie Wu and Version 1 by Amy Beth Beardmore.

Poor social connectedness has long been recognised as a significant threat to both physical and mental health, particularly for older people. Numerous studies examining the health impacts of loneliness and isolation have demonstrated an association with negative outcomes such as increased mortality, cognitive decline, anxiety and depression and cardiovascular disease. However, with the rapid onset of the SARS-CoV-2 (otherwise known as COVID-19) virus in early 2020 came an additional threat to those already vulnerable to loneliness—enforced physical isolation. Confinement to the home was particularly important for the health of those in older age due to the increased mortality risk from the virus for that section of the population.

  • older people
  • social connectedness
  • isolation
  • loneliness
  • COVID-19
  • lockdowns

1. The Importance of Staying Socially Connected

There is extensive literature on the range of benefits to maintaining friendships and staying socially connected in older age, either formally or informally [11,12,13,14][1][2][3][4]. As such, in ‘normal’ times, many older people tend to mitigate isolation, loneliness or negative mental health outcomes by maintaining their social identity through participation in group activities [15][5], volunteering [16,17][6][7] or paid work post-retirement age [18][8]. There is also evidence that meaningful social connectedness can be established through social media [19][9] and may even offer benefits to individuals in terms of reducing anxiety and depression [20][10]. Maintaining social ties and actively seeking new ways to socially connect with others has been shown to boost confidence, enhance self-esteem and has been associated with other additional positive outcomes such as an increase in physical activity [21][11]. Social connectedness is therefore increasingly recognised as a significant public health issue with major implications for individual health and wellbeing [22][12].
Staying socially connected can take a number of different forms, ranging from impromptu, informal meetings and conversations with members of the local community to planned events with family and friends [11][1]. In theories of social capital, these relationships and interactions are referred to as strong and weak ties. Whilst weak ties may appear to imply a more negative experience, both have equal value for older people in terms of reducing loneliness and isolation; strong ties, on the one hand, may offer ‘emotional closeness’ whereas weak ties to others can provide ‘social support’ for the individual concerned ([23][13], p. 2). For example, interacting with the local area—perhaps by simply going for a walk or running errands—forms a significant part of many older people’s daily routine, and results in informal interactions that can often constitute a large part of their day-to-day social connectedness. This physical presence in and the ability to interact within a person’s local community on a regular, informal basis has been shown to increase trust in others and improve overall social wellbeing [24][14].
However, the pandemic created a social-connectivity paradox for older people. Later life is a time when maintaining social connections has increased importance in terms of enabling older people to develop and sustain mental wellbeing and resilience; so, whilst the stay-at-home order may have protected their physical health, their mental health was put in jeopardy through diminished social connections as a result of this advice [25,26][15][16].

2. The Digital Divide

Until recently, most people who had access to digital technologies had largely used them to complement their in-person social activities rather than as their primary means of staying connected [27][17]. However, the pandemic forced many to engage with digital technologies in ways they had not done previously, and on a much more regular basis.
Prior to the pandemic there were already inconsistencies in terms of older adult’s ownership of equipment to get online, and in their levels of computer literacy and internet skills [28][18]. This is often referred to as the ‘digital divide,’ a term which has been used to indicate different levels of ownership or access to communication technologies [29][19] and, more recently, to possessing the appropriate skills to use them [30][20]. This is a particular issue for older adults; according to research carried out in 2018, 76% of those reporting that they had zero basic digital skills fell into the 65 years and above age group [31][21]. In the context of the pandemic, this has led some to argue that for older adults this constituted a ‘double burden’ in the sense that they were often more likely to be both physically and technologically isolated from others during this period [32][22].
Despite this divide, for many older people during the enforced isolation periods of the pandemic digital technologies and the internet became a primary means of staying connected to the outside world, and a survey conducted early in the pandemic listed staying in touch with family and friends remotely as the primary means of coping for those over 60 [33][23]. However, this will have inevitably left those who were not already online or active internet users disconnected from their usual social networks.

3. Social Connectedness and Sense of Coherence as Resources for Coping and Resilience

Although much of the literature on resilience has historically focused on children and young adults [34][24], there has been an increasing interest in resilience and coping in older age in recent years. Having existing strong social networks has been shown to reduce depressive symptoms in adults facing adversity, and research suggests that having a large social network can promote resilience in this age group [34][24].
But it is not just social connectedness that can increase resilience; some argue that it is simply the fact that older adults have often already experienced many of life’s challenges that allows them to develop resilience and coping mechanisms for events that occur in later life [35][25]. Similarly, salutogenic theory posits that coping and resilience in stressful situations is associated with an individual’s personal sense of coherence [36][26]. If stressors become too much, then this can be a threat to a person’s sense of wellbeing and their ability to cope with life events can be affected. However, Antonovsky and Kats also argue that the impact of external stressors can be mitigated by the individual if they have the appropriate resources at hand, whether they be social, cultural or psychological [37][27]. It is these resources that support our sense of coherence throughout life.
How and why older individuals cope or even flourish under difficult circumstances is particularly relevant to this restudyearch given that the over 60s are already susceptible to these events, and the majority have now also had the universal experience of dealing with the consequences of the pandemic as an additional stressor. In quantitative studies, personal resilience was found to reduce stress and anxiety related to the pandemic [38][28] and one mixed-methods study examining initial coping strategies in the United States found that older adults tended to view their coping abilities positively [39][29].
The extent to which older adults were able to cope during the COVID-19 outbreak and the protective factors that influenced their levels of resilience has been of interest to numerous researchers since the start of the pandemic [38,39,40,41,42][28][29][30][31][32]. However, there appear to be fewer qualitative studies that explore the lived experiences of older people as they tried to stay socially connected during this time. OuResearchers' study is therefore concerned with the amount of social connectedness participants were able to maintain throughout a year of restrictions in the United Kingdom, from March 2020 to May 2021, but also with the mechanisms that assisted them in seeking out these opportunities, if indeed they did.

References

  1. Buys, L.; Burton, L.; Cuthill, M.; Hogan, A.; Wilson, B.; Baker, D. Establishing and maintaining social connectivity: An understanding of the lived experiences of older adults residing in regional and rural communities. Aust. J. Rural Health 2015, 23, 291–294.
  2. Seifert, A. The Digital Exclusion of Older Adults during the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Gerontol. Soc. Work 2020, 63, 674–676.
  3. Cacioppo, J.; Hawkley, L.; Kalil, A.; Hughes, M.; Waite, L.; Thisted, R. Happiness and the Individual Threads of Social Connection; The Guildford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008; Available online: https://smartlib.umri.ac.id/assets/uploads/files/77459-subjective-well-being.pdf#page=209 (accessed on 10 June 2023).
  4. Holt-Lunstad, J. The Major Health Implications of Social Connection. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2021, 30, 251–259.
  5. Haslam, C.; Cruwys, T.; Haslam, S.A.; Jetten, J. Social Connectedness and Health. Encycl. Geropsychol. 2015, 46, 1–10.
  6. Carr, D.C.; Kail, B.L.; Matz-Costa, C.; Shavit, Y.Z. Does Becoming a Volunteer Attenuate Loneliness among Recently Widowed Older Adults? J. Gerontol. Ser. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2018, 73, 501–510.
  7. Pilkington, P.D.; Windsor, T.D.; Crisp, D.A. Volunteering and subjective well-being in midlife and older adults: The role of supportive social networks. J. Gerontol. Ser. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2012, 67, 249–260.
  8. Shiba, K.; Kondo, N.; Kondo, K.; Kawachi, I. Retirement and mental health: Dose social participation mitigate the association? A fixed-effects longitudinal analysis. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 526.
  9. Sinclair, T.J.; Grieve, R. Facebook as a source of social connectedness in older adults. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 66, 363–369.
  10. Grieve, R.; Indian, M.; Witteveen, K.; Anne Tolan, G.; Marrington, J. Face-to-face or Facebook: Can social connectedness be derived online? Comput. Hum. Behav. 2013, 29, 604–609.
  11. Cornwell, B.; Laumann, E.O. The health benefits of network growth: New evidence from a national survey of older adults. Soc. Sci. Med. 2015, 125, 94–106.
  12. Holt-Lunstad, J. Social Connection as a Public Health Issue: The Evidence and a Systemic Framework for Prioritizing the Social in Social Determinants of Health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2022, 43, 193–213.
  13. Lam, J.; Broccatelli, C.; Baxter, J. Diversity of strong and weak ties and loneliness in older adults. J. Aging Stud. 2023, 64, 101097.
  14. Leyden, K.M. Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods. Am. J. Public Health 2003, 93, 1546–1551.
  15. MacLeod, S.; Tkatch, R.; Kraemer, S.; Fellows, A.; McGinn, M.; Schaeffer, J.; Yeh, C.S. COVID-19 era social isolation among older adults. Geriatrics 2021, 6, 52.
  16. Smith, M.L.; Steinman, L.E.; Casey, E.A. Combatting Social Isolation Among Older Adults in a Time of Physical Distancing: The COVID-19 Social Connectivity Paradox. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 403.
  17. Hardill, I.; Olphert, C.W. Staying connected: Exploring mobile phone use amongst older adults in the UK. Geoforum 2012, 43, 1306–1312.
  18. Hargittai, E.; Piper, A.M.; Morris, M.R. From internet access to internet skills: Digital inequality among older adults. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 2018, 18, 881–890.
  19. Van Dijk, J.A.G.M. Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics 2006, 34, 221–235.
  20. Van Deursen, A.; van Dijk, J. Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media Soc. 2011, 13, 893–911.
  21. Serafino, P. Exploring the UK’s digital divide. Office of National Statistics. 2019. Available online: https://www.risual.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Exploring-the-UK-s-digital-divide-compressed.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2023).
  22. Seifert, A.; Cotten, S.R.; Xie, B. A Double Burden of Exclusion? Digital and Social Exclusion of Older Adults in Times of COVID-19. J. Gerontol. Ser. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2021, 76, E99–E103.
  23. Storey, A. Coronavirus and the Social Impacts on Older People in Great Britain: 3 April to 10 May 2020, 22 June 2020. Office for National Statistics 2020. Available online: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/ageing/articles/coronavirusandthesocialimpactsonolderpeopleingreatbritain/3aprilto10may2020 (accessed on 19 June 2023).
  24. Fuller-Iglesias, H.; Sellars, B.; Antonucci, T.C. Resilience in Old Age: Social Relations as a Protective Factor. Res. Hum. Dev. 2008, 5, 181–193.
  25. Davis, M.; Zautra, A.; Johnson, L. Psychosocial Stress, Emotional Regulation, and Resilience among Older Adults; Guildford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007.
  26. Antonovsky, A. Health, Stress and Coping; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1979.
  27. Antonovsky, A.; Kats, R. The Life Crisis History as a Tool in Epidemiological Research. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1969, 8, 15–21.
  28. Rossi, R.; Jannini, T.B.; Socci, V.; Pacitti, F.; Di Lorenzo, G. Stressful Life Events and Resilience During the COVID-19 Lockdown Measures in Italy: Association with Mental Health Outcomes and Age. Front. Psychiatry 2021, 12, 635832.
  29. Fuller, H.R.; Huseth-Zosel, A. Lessons in Resilience: Initial Coping among Older Adults during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Gerontologist 2021, 61, 114–125.
  30. Mau, M.; Fabricius, A.M.; Klausen, S.H. Keys to well-being in older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: Personality, coping and meaning. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Health Well-Being 2022, 17, 2110669.
  31. Sterina, E.; Hermida, A.P.; Gerberi, D.J.; Lapid, M.I. Emotional Resilience of Older Adults during COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Studies of Stress and Well-Being. Clin. Gerontol. 2022, 45, 4–19.
  32. Zhang, N.; Yang, S.; Jia, P. Cultivating Resilience during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Socioecological Perspective. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2022, 73, 575–598.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback