
Loneliness Not Tied to Mortality in Older Adult Home Care
Loneliness is not associated with an increased risk for death among older adults receiving home care in three countries, researchers reported.
Bonaventure A. Egbujie, MD, PhD
In fact, after adjustment for multiple possible confounders, the survival analysis showed that loneliness was associated with reductions in the 1-year risk for mortality of 18% in Canada, 15% in Finland, and 23% in New Zealand.
Nevertheless, 'Loneliness doesn't have to kill you to be a major public health issue,' study author Bonaventure A. Egbujie, MD, PhD, adjunct professor of public health sciences at the University of Waterloo in Waterloo, Ontario, told Medscape Medical News. 'We would like to see policymakers begin to take the issue of loneliness seriously, consider it a quality-of-life issue, and not treat it as a mortality issue, because when you make it a mortality issue, it becomes less likely to be something that you can intervene on.'
The findings were published in the Journal of the American Medical Directors Association .
Pervasive but Not Deadly
The investigators used population-based home care data on 178,611 home care recipients from Canada, 35,073 home care recipients from Finland, and 85,065 home care recipients from New Zealand. Participants were between 65 and over 85 years old, and about 38% were men.
Of the Canadian cohort, 15.9% reported being lonely; 20.5% of the Finnish cohort reported being lonely, and 24.2% of the New Zealand cohort reported being lonely. The prevalence of loneliness generally increased with age across the three countries.
Loneliness was higher among recipients who had better baseline physical function and worse pain and cognitive performance across the three countries.
After adjusting for confounding factors, including age, sex, Alzheimer's disease or dementia, marital status, and living alone or not living alone, the researchers calculated the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of loneliness and mortality risk as 0.82 in the Canadian cohort, 0.85 in the Finnish cohort, and 0.77 in New Zealand.
The findings contrast with existing evidence in the literature suggesting a link between loneliness and death, Egbujie acknowledged. He suggested that the difference may result from the fact that this study was done in a specific group of individuals, whereas other meta-analyses examined the general population.
'One of the reasons we studied the effect of loneliness on older home care recipients is because this group has not been specifically studied,' he said. 'There has been a focus on people in other places, including those in the community, those in hospital, and in nursing homes, but not on this group.'
The team also found that the two strongest independent predictors of mortality across the three countries were cancer (Canada, HR, 2.88; Finland, HR, 2.57; and New Zealand, HR, 2.07) and Changes in Health and End-Stage Disease and Symptoms and Signs scores of 3 or more (Canada, HR, 2.66; Finland, HR, 2.61; and New Zealand, HR, 2.65).
A limitation of the study was the 1-year follow-up, as health consequences of loneliness may take more time to manifest themselves, the authors noted. In addition, they relied on a single-item measure of loneliness rather than a multi-item summary scale.
Egbujie would like to see longer-term studies to better understand whether there is a causal relationship between loneliness and adverse health outcomes and mortality.
A shortcoming of the current study, he said, 'is that we don't know the sequence of events. Which appeared first? Was it loneliness that appeared first and led to the health condition, or was it the health condition that appeared first and led to individuals being lonely?'
Regardless, 'for clinicians and policymakers, this finding highlights the need to examine home care more carefully,' the authors wrote. 'Loneliness should be addressed as a quality-of-life concern for home care clients in its own right without the need to justify intervention based on mortality risks.'
'Important Public Health Issue'
Rachel Savage, PhD, a scientist at Women's College Hospital, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto, Toronto, and a public health researcher who investigates the impact of loneliness on health system use and mortality, commented on the study for Medscape Medical News . She noted that the study is 'methodologically sound, led by a highly respected researcher who is an expert in home care,' and has the key strength of having been replicated across three countries. Savage did not participate in the study.
Rachel Savage, PhD
She agreed with the authors that the absence of evidence of an increased risk for death from loneliness does not make loneliness unimportant.
'It's not an either/or quality-of-life issue or a mortality risk; it's potentially both,' said Savage. 'We know that loneliness is an important predictor of quality of life and mental health, so even if we do find that it does not increase mortality risk among certain populations, it's still a very important public health issue.'
'There is something unique about the home care population,' she added. 'It's wonderful that these authors have started to build some of the evidence in this group, because, as they state, most of the large meta-analyses that have shown a link between loneliness and an increased risk for premature death are set in the general population.'
She noted that females consistently report higher rates of loneliness than males. There could be a few different reasons for this, she said.
'The most obvious one, especially for older adults, is that females on average have a longer life expectancy and so are more likely to experience widowhood and living alone, which are big risk factors for loneliness. Women are also more likely to be caregivers and to have lower incomes, both of which are associated with loneliness. And the last thing is women are more likely to admit their feelings than are men because of social norms.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Medscape
30 minutes ago
- Medscape
Guselkumab Clears Scalp Psoriasis Across Skin Tones
TOPLINE: In the VISIBLE trial, guselkumab led to significant and sustained improvements in scalp psoriasis severity and quality of life in patients with skin of color through 48 weeks. METHODOLOGY: Researchers evaluated outcomes in a cohort of patients in the phase 3b randomized VISIBLE trial, which included 102 adults with skin of color and scalp psoriasis (mean age, 42.5 years; Fitzpatrick skin type IV-VI, 62.7%; 56.9% men) at 45 sites in the US and Canada from September 2022 to June 2024. Participants self-identified as Asian (38.2%), non-White Hispanic or Latino (38.2%), Black (10.8%), and Middle Eastern (4.9%). Participants were randomly assigned 3:1 to receive guselkumab or placebo with crossover to guselkumab at week 16. Coprimary endpoints were scalp-specific Investigator's Global Assessment (ss-IGA) score of 0/1 and 90% improvement in Psoriasis Scalp Severity Index (PSSI) at week 16. Secondary outcomes were changes in PSSI, scalp surface area, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Scalp Itch Numeric Rating Scale, Psoriasis Symptoms and Signs Diary, and complete clearance. TAKEAWAY: At week 16, patients treated with guselkumab showed significantly higher response rates than those with placebo for ss-IGA 0/1 (68.4% vs 11.5%; P < .001) and PSSI 90 (65.8% vs 3.8%; P < .001). Complete scalp clearance was higher in the guselkumab group: ss-IGA 0 (57.9% vs 3.8%; P < .001) and PSSI 100 (59.2% vs 3.8%; P < .001). At week 16, guselkumab led to greater mean percentage improvements in PSSI (least squares mean [LSM] change, 87.6% vs 37.8%; P < .001) and scalp surface area (SSA; LSM change, 86.6% vs 33.4%; P < .001). Patients reported improved quality of life (DLQI: LSM change, -9.7 vs -2.2; P < .001), symptom relief (LSM change, -44.8 vs -8.3; P < .001), and improvements in itch scores (69.4% vs 24.0%; P < .001) with guselkumab vs placebo at week 16. Over 90% of patients achieved mean percentage improvements with guselkumab in PSSI and SSA by week 48, with 67.1% achieving complete scalp clearance (ss-IGA 0). One patient in the placebo group experienced at least one serious adverse event (SAE) at week 16 vs none in the guselkumab-treated group. From 0-48 weeks, at least one SAE was reported in 2.5% of patients on guselkumab; no adverse events resulted in drug discontinuation. IN PRACTICE: The findings showed that 'guselkumab is highly effective for the treatment of moderate-to-severe scalp psoriasis in individuals with skin of color across the spectrum of objectively measured skin tones,' the study authors concluded. SOURCE: This study was led by Amy McMichael, MD, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and was published online on June 25 in JAMA Dermatology. LIMITATIONS: Postinflammatory pigment alteration, a common concern in people with skin of color, was not fully captured. DISCLOSURES: Johnson & Johnson provided funding support for this study. McMichael reported receiving personal fees, nonfinancial support, and royalties from various organizations, including Johnson & Johnson. Several other authors also reported receiving personal fees, investigator fees, salary, stock, and stock options from Johnson & Johnson and multiple other companies. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.


Washington Post
34 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Thimerosal: What to know about the preservative from a bygone flu-shot debate
The Trump administration's vaccine advisers are bringing up an old flu-shot debate: whether it's time to wipe out the last small fraction of those vaccines that contain a controversial preservative called thimerosal. It's a question seemingly laid to rest years ago, as studies showed no evidence that the preservative causes any health problems.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Letters to the Editor: How ICE raids could inadvertently encourage the spread of infectious diseases
To the editor: Staff writer Corinne Purtill's article on healthcare avoidance due to Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations highlights a crucial gap: the public health threat posed by undetected infectious diseases ('In Southern California, many are skipping healthcare out of fear of ICE operations,' June 20). While missed chronic care appointments create individual health risks, the failure to diagnose and treat contagious conditions threatens our entire community. When fearful residents stop seeking medical care, avoid routine visits and skip vaccinations, communicable diseases such as tuberculosis, measles or seasonal flu can spread uncontrolled. A single undiagnosed case in L.A.'s densely populated neighborhoods, schools or workplaces could trigger outbreaks affecting everyone — documented and undocumented residents alike. Public health depends on communitywide participation in disease surveillance and prevention. Immigration enforcement that drives vulnerable populations away from healthcare doesn't just harm those individuals; it also creates dangerous blind spots in our infectious disease monitoring systems. Los Angeles cannot maintain public health while a significant portion of our population remains hidden from medical care. This crisis demands immediate attention to protect all Angelenos. Thomas Klitzner, Culver City This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.