Search

Background: There is growing interest in understanding the care needs of lonely people but studies are limited and examine healthcare settings separately. We estimated and compared healthcare trajectories in lonely and not lonely older female and male respondents to a national health survey. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of community‐dwelling, Ontario respondents (65+ years) to the 2008/2009 Canadian Community Health Survey—Healthy Aging. Respondents were classified at baseline as not lonely, moderately lonely, or severely lonely using the Three‐Item Loneliness Scale and then linked with health administrative data to assess healthcare transitions over a 12 ‐year observation period. Annual risks of moving from the community to inpatient, long‐stay home care, long‐term care settings—and death—were estimated across loneliness levels using sex‐stratified multistate models. Results: Of 2684 respondents (58.8% female sex; mean age 77 years [standard deviation: 8]), 635 (23.7%) experienced moderate loneliness and 420 (15.6%) severe loneliness. Fewer lonely respondents remained in the community with no transitions (not lonely, 20.3%; moderately lonely, 17.5%; and severely lonely, 12.6%). Annual transition risks from the community to home care and long‐term care were higher in female respondents and increased with loneliness severity for both sexes (e.g., 2‐year home care risk: 6.1% [95% CI 5.5–6.6], 8.4% [95% CI 7.4–9.5] and 9.4% [95% CI 8.2–10.9] in female respondents, and 3.5% [95% CI 3.1–3.9], 5.0% [95% CI 4.0–6.0], and 5.4% [95% CI 4.0–6.8] in male respondents; 5‐year long‐term care risk: 9.2% [95% CI 8.0–10.8], 11.1% [95% CI 9.3–13.6] and 12.2% [95% CI 9.9–15.3] [female], and 5.3% [95% CI 4.2–6.7], 9.1% [95% CI 6.8–12.5], and 10.9% [95% CI 7.9–16.3] [male]). Conclusions: Lonely older female and male respondents were more likely to need home care and long‐term care, with severely lonely female respondents having the highest probability of moving to these settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Small area estimation refers to statistical modelling procedures that leverage information or "borrow strength" from other sources or variables. This is done to enhance the reliability of estimates of characteristics or outcomes for areas that do not contain sufficient sample sizes to provide disaggregated estimates of adequate precision and reliability. There is growing interest in secondary research applications for small area estimates (SAEs). However, it is crucial to assess the analytic value of these estimates when used as proxies for individual-level characteristics or as distinct measures that offer insights at the area level. This study assessed novel area-level community belonging measures derived using small area estimation and examined associations with individual-level measures of community belonging and self-rated health. Data and methods SAEs of community belonging within census tracts produced from the 2016-2019 cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) were merged with respondent data from the 2020 CCHS. Multinomial logistic regression models were run between area-level SAEs, individual-level sense of community belonging, and self-rated health on the study sample of people aged 18 years and older. Results Area-level community belonging was associated with individual-level community belonging, even after adjusting for individual-level sociodemographic characteristics, despite limited agreement between individual- and area-level measures. Living in a neighbourhood with low community belonging was associated with higher odds of reporting being in fair or poor health, versus being in very good or excellent health (odds ratio: 1.53; 95% confidence interval: 1.22, 1.91), even after adjusting for other factors such as individual-level sense of community belonging, which was also associated with self-rated health. Interpretation Area-level and individual-level sense of community belonging were independently associated with self-rated health. The novel SAEs of community belonging can be used as distinct measures of neighbourhood-level community belonging and should be understood as complementary to, rather than proxies for, individual-level measures of community belonging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]