Old people in England are happier with their life now than before COVID. What's changed?
Older people in England are happier than ever – or at least happier than they were before the COVID-19 pandemic, a new study suggests.
Researchers from University College London (UCL) tracked about 4,000 people ages 50 and up in the country from 2012 to 2023. They used survey data to measure people's happiness, life satisfaction, and eudaemonic well-being – a sense of purpose and meaning in life – as well as depressive symptoms.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, older people's mental well-being declined and depression levels rose in late 2020 with pandemic restrictions in full force, according to the findings, which were published in the journal Aging & Mental Health.
Related
Around 20% of UK medical students consider quitting university because of poor mental health
But the scales soon tipped the other way. Older Britons' mental well-being bounced back from late 2021 to 2023, with their life satisfaction and sense of purpose even eclipsing their pre-pandemic levels, the study found.
The findings could "reflect a renewed appreciation for social connections and meaningful activities, as well as increased psychological resilience after a period of adversity," Paola Zaninotto, the study's lead author and a professor of medical and social statistics at UCL, said in a statement.
Well-being may be subjective, but it's about more than a lack of mental health problems like depression. Researchers think of well-being as a combination of positive feelings like happiness, good relationships, and a sense of purpose and control in life that allow people to thrive.
That may help explain why depression levels did not improve in tandem with mental well-being after the pandemic.
Related
This country is the most depressed in Europe. How does yours compare?
Before the pandemic, 11.4 per cent of older adults experienced significant depressive symptoms, a level that surged to 27.2 per cent in late 2020 and then fell to 14.9 per cent from 2021 to 2023.
The researchers theorised that this could be due to the after-effects of interrupted medical care and other services for older people during the pandemic.
Notably, not everyone reaped the benefits of the post-pandemic mental health boom.
Adults in their 50s and less affluent people reported being worse off than their older and wealthier peers – possibly because their well-being levels were already lower before the pandemic.
After the pandemic, people over 75 also saw smaller improvements in well-being and depression levels, possibly due to "persistent vulnerabilities" such as health problems, slower mental adaptation to the crisis, and a hit to their social lives, researchers said.
Related
Researchers identify new genetic risk factors for depression. Here's what that means
The disparities underscore the "importance of tailored support policies for the immediate and lingering effects of pandemics on the well-being of our older population," Zaninotto said.
The study has some limitations. Nearly all of the participants were white and about half were retired, which means the findings may not reflect the experiences of other groups.
Even so, the findings are in line with previous research that shows life satisfaction has risen slightly in the UK since the early 1980s.
Related
Hospital admissions for mental health increase by 65% in a decade among young people
In 2024, the United Kingdom ranked 20th of 143 countries in the annual World Happiness Report from University of Oxford, which tracks people's life satisfaction.
Older adults may be providing a boost. The UK's older adults are now "significantly happier than the young," the 2024 report found, a trend that is mirrored in Norway, Sweden, Germany, Spain, and France.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
30 minutes ago
- Axios
Vaccine board purge stokes talk of CDC alternatives
By gutting the expert panel that's advised the government on vaccine policy for more than 60 years, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earned the condemnation of virtually every medical society, as well as former public health officials and local practitioners. What became immediately clear is that no outside group can immediately step in and fill the vacuum if the public won't trust the reconstituted Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The big picture: The distress and lack of organization apparent in health circles on Tuesday was a sign that a new independent body that could act as a "shadow CDC" to truth-squad the Trump administration isn't close to materializing. "We are clearly working on it and we think it's very important, but I don't think anyone has an answer yet," said Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, who's behind one ad hoc effort. "Right now, we're in such uncharted territory." The medical establishment has floated ideas such as state-appointed boards or medical specialty associations serving as clearinghouses for information on vaccine safety and efficacy for clinicians. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) during the pandemic created a state entity to review the safety of federally approved COVID-19 vaccines before distributing them to the public. But it would be difficult to replicate the professional clout of ACIP, whose recommendations can influence whether insurers cover vaccines. That would leave Kennedy's handpicked successors controlling the narrative — a prospect many researchers and physicians think will bring a radical departure from ACIP's evidence-based deliberations on safety and efficacy. Friction point: Kennedy and other Trump health officials' assertions that ACIP has been a rubber stamp for vaccines have infuriated public health officials, who say the physicians, infectious disease experts and researchers constituted a vital body of nongovernmental health leaders who took their jobs seriously. Panel members were carefully vetted for conflicts and had their professional credentials scrutinized. Discussions took place in a high-profile public forum that would be difficult, if not impossible, to replicate. "Many of us can provide a read of the science, and we can convene formally or informally to create consensus around vaccine recommendations," said Megan Ranney, dean of the Yale School of Public Health. "But I suspect that it won't be sufficient for insurers, for Medicaid, for the Vaccines for Children program, and it's unclear how pediatricians and primary care physicians and pharmacies across the country are going to be able to respond," she said. The other side: Kennedy wrote on X Tuesday night that he would announce new ACIP members in the coming days. "None of these individuals will be ideological anti-vaxxers. They will be highly credentialed physicians and scientists," Kennedy wrote. He added he would detail instances of "historical corruption at ACIP to help the public understand why this clean sweep was necessary. "Kennedy cited the panel's "stubborn unwillingness to demand adequate safety trials before recommending new vaccines for our children" as the most "outrageous example." What to watch: All eyes are on the new appointees for the board, including their scientific backgrounds, track records when it comes to defending vaccines and any potential conflicts of interest. HHS has indicated it has every intention of moving forward with ACIP's next meeting, scheduled for June 25-27. The agenda includes recommendation votes for COVID–19, HPV, influenza, meningococcal and RSV vaccines. "If nothing else, I think [the committee] may have trouble functioning because you've just lost a whole lot of institutional memory," said Adam Ratner, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Infectious Diseases. "That agenda has the committee voting on real things that matter to real people, and I don't know how they're possibly going to do that in any kind of way that is based on science or evidence," he said.
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Childhood trauma linked to higher risk of endometriosis in adult women
ST. PAUL, Minn., June 11 (UPI) -- A suspected link between childhood trauma and the risk of developing endometriosis in later life was strengthened Wednesday with the publication of study that showed a greater chance of the condition among women with histories of difficult childhoods. The study of hundreds of thousands of women in Sweden found those who as children experienced substance abuse, had a teenage or mentally ill parent, financial problems or a death in the family were linked to a 20% increased risk of an endometriosis diagnosis compared to women who had not been exposed. However, the risk was much greater for girls exposed more than one of those factors, rising to 60%, while those who witnessed or were subjected to violence saw more than twice the risk of developing endometriosis later in life compared to women who had not been exposed, the Swedish authors reported. The study published in the British medical journal Human Reproduction builds on earlier findings that women who experienced physical and sexual abuse as children had a 79% higher risk of developing the painful condition, which affects one in 10 reproductive-age women in the United States. Lead author Dr. Marika Rostvall, a physician and doctoral student in the Department of Global Public Health at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, told UPI the findings provide more evidence of the strong connection between mental and physical health. The findings "support previous studies in other areas of medicine suggesting that the mind and body are intimately connected and that psychologically taxing events can have biological consequences," she said in emailed comments. Endometriosis usually affects women in their 20s and 30s, and while there are a handful known risk factors such as starting menstruation early and having a lean body type, the cause remains unknown. The problems stem from the behavior of tissues known as endometrium, which under normal circumstances are found only in the inner lining of a woman's uterus. Those tissues grow to a thick, blood vessel-rich layer during the menstrual cycle to prepare for possible implantation of an embryo, and then shed the blood at the end of the cycle if there is no embryo present. But in some cases, endometrium behave abnormally and start growing outside of the uterus. When they do so, they can attach themselves to the ovaries, fallopian tubes, bowel, bladder or other parts of the body, triggering frequently severe pelvic pain as they carry out their monthly thickening function. As a result, endometriosis can cause excessive bleeding and even infertility -- which is the case for up to half of women with the condition -- as well as cysts, scar tissue and adhesions. Those in turn can trigger chronic pain, including during with sexual intercourse as well as during urination or bowel movements. The Swedish researchers began by looking at the health records of more 1.3 million women born in in the country between 1974 and 2001, eventually narrowing it down to 24,000 who were diagnosed with endometriosis. They then tapped several national registers to track their childhood experiences, looking for evidence of trauma or difficulties, including crimes such as violence and sexual abuse. The results, they said, demonstrate the importance of considering "the whole person" not just the symptoms of endometriosis. The negative physical consequences of psychological trauma can perhaps be traced to a compromised ability of the immune system to protect against the condition, or even in how the body perceives pain, Rostvall said. "I think the immune system is an interesting part of the puzzle when it comes to trying to understand why some women develop endometriosis," she said. "Chronic inflammation is a big part of the disease, and it has also been shown that women with endometriosis have a higher incidence of autoimmune disorders compared to healthy women. "There is a lot of interesting research being done in the area, and a deeper understanding of exactly how the immune system functions in relation to endometriosis could potentially help bring forward new kinds of treatment." Like some other women's health issues, the pain of endometriosis is often dismissed and sufferers have reported negative experiences with healthcare professionals, often in the form of providers "trivializing" symptoms, which can cause feelings of loneliness and alienation. This, in turn, can make obtaining a diagnosis difficult and prompt some to choose to avoid engaging with doctors altogether. A British psychological-based study from last year showed some women who suffered symptoms felt they had experienced a form of "medical gaslighting" in which they were made to doubt their own perceptions of pain. Rostvall said these kinds of experiences are especially relevant when the patients are women who come from socially and psychologically traumatic backgrounds. "A lot of women presenting with pain, especially socioeconomically disadvantaged women and women with psychiatric comorbidities, who are more likely to have experienced childhood adversity, have their pain dismissed. They then have to wait for a long time to receive a diagnosis and treatment, potentially allowing the condition to worsen," she said. "I think physicians should be aware of the complex linkage between the mind and body in general and be more open to listening to their patients' stories, take their pain seriously, and offer a thorough physical examination."
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Germany's Psychiatric Blind Spot: Behind Prison Walls
In this interview with Coliquio , a Medscape Network platform, Gregor Gross, MD, from the psychiatric department at Straubing Prison in Straubing, Germany, discussed the challenges and insights of providing psychiatric care within the German prison system. As a specialist in psychiatry and psychotherapy, Gross offered candid insights into working at the intersection of acute mental health crises, systemic understaffing, and occasional moments of unexpected therapeutic success. It's a conversation about caring for society's most marginalized individuals — and what can happen when their psychiatric illnesses are overlooked. Why is a dedicated psychiatric unit necessary in prisons? Mental health disorders are significantly more prevalent among inmates than in the general population. Nearly half of all prisoners struggle with substance abuse. Approximately 25% of male inmates suffer from depression, and among female inmates, the rate is about 33%. Psychotic disorders are present in roughly 4% of the prison population, and ADHD is also relatively common, affecting about 10%. At Straubing Prison, around half of the inmates are under continuous psychiatric care, which is not an exception. Does incarceration itself trigger these mental health issues? Most inmates enter prison with preexisting mental health conditions; many have been incarcerated multiple times and are familiar with the environment, which reduces stress. However, first-time inmates often develop adjustment disorders, typically manifesting as temporary depressive reactions. These usually subside after a few weeks or months. In general, the prison environment rarely causes severe psychiatric problems on its own. Are there specific groups of inmates who are particularly vulnerable? Yes, especially those serving substitute custodial sentences. These individuals have committed minor offenses, such as shoplifting or fare evasion, and are unable to pay fines due to psychiatric or social issues, leading to incarceration. Repeated imprisonment exacerbates their underlying problems rather than resolving them. Does the justice system inadvertently create its own inmates? Unfortunately, yes. A revolving-door effect occurs where individuals are released only to return shortly after for similar minor offenses they cannot afford to rectify financially. The root causes of their behavior are never addressed, indicating a clear need for political intervention. The suicide rate in prisons is reportedly high. How is this managed? At Straubing, we conduct systematic, scientifically validated suicide screenings upon intake and during high-risk situations, such as post-sentencing or pre-release. These periods often induce anxiety about the future, posing real suicide risks. What measures are taken if someone is at high risk? Immediate, intensive psychiatric care is provided. Often, this support is sufficient to navigate the crisis. We also have cells equipped with camera surveillance, and some inmates request placement there due to fear of impulsive actions. Coercive measures are rare and used only when there's an acute suicide risk, which may include removing clothing to prevent self-harm, substituting with paper garments. Despite precautions, the prison suicide rate remains 10 times higher than in the general population. Therefore, peer-support programs, like the model project in Munich where trained inmates assist newcomers, are vital and should be expanded. How adequate is psychiatric care in German prisons overall? Frankly, it's significantly below what's necessary. Despite the high number of mentally ill inmates, many facilities lack psychiatric services. Nationwide, there are only about 30 prison psychiatrists for approximately 60,000 inmates, equating to over 1000 cases per doctor. Many positions remain unfilled due to a shortage of qualified professionals. Consequently, prison medical staff without psychiatric training often have to fill the gap, which is far from ideal. Would transferring mentally ill inmates to regular hospitals be beneficial? In theory, yes, but it's rarely feasible in practice. Many hospitals refuse inmates due to capacity issues or stigma, perceiving their symptoms as criminal behavior rather than illness. Additionally, the presence of correctional officers disrupts hospital routines, leading to infrequent acceptance of such transfers. How can more psychiatrists be attracted to work in prisons? A major issue is the lack of exposure to prison psychiatry during medical education and specialist training. Yet, it's an incredibly engaging field. If medical students and residents experienced this work firsthand, they would appreciate its professional and human relevance, potentially increasing interest in this specialty. What other steps are being taken to address the care deficit? The German Society for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Psychosomatics, and Neurology has established a working group to assess the actual needs for psychiatric care in prisons. The goal is to obtain reliable data to accurately determine the extent of the deficit, which is essential for advocating political improvements. The principle of equivalence dictates that medical care in prisons must be comparable to that outside; incarceration should not result in inferior healthcare, especially psychiatric services. Can telemedicine help alleviate the problem? In some German federal states, telepsychiatry is well established in prisons. However, it's intended as a supplement, not a replacement. Effective psychiatric treatment requires personal contact and a cohesive team, including on-site nurses and therapists, which cannot be fully replicated through video consultations. Are there inmates who particularly benefit from prison psychiatric services? Yes, notably individuals with migration backgrounds. Many lacked access to psychiatric care in their home countries or in Germany due to inadequate healthcare systems or language barriers. In prison, we can often diagnose conditions like depression, psychosis, or ADHD for the first time, offering opportunities they might never have received otherwise.
