4.4 Article

Loneliness among adults with visual impairment: prevalence, associated factors, and relationship to life satisfaction

期刊

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12955-019-1096-y

关键词

Blindness; Life satisfaction; Loneliness; Visual impairment

资金

  1. European Commission, Directorate - General Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection [ECHO/SUB/2015/718665/PREP17]
  2. Norwegian Association of the Blind and Partially Sighted

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundLittle is known about whether and to what extent loneliness impacts the lives of people with visual impairment (VI). Thus, the aim of this study was to examine the prevalence of and factors associated with loneliness in adults with VI, and to examine its association with life satisfaction.MethodsThis cross-sectional interview study included a probability sample of 736 adults (18years old) with VI who were members of the Norwegian Association of the Blind and Partially Sighted. The interviews took place from January to May 2017, collecting information about sociodemographics, VI characteristics, adverse life events, loneliness (Three Item Loneliness Scale), and life satisfaction (Cantril's Ladder of Life Satisfaction). The prevalence of loneliness was compared to data obtained from the general Norwegian population (N=14,884; mean age 46.4years; 50.7% females).ResultsThe prevalence of moderate and severe loneliness in the VI population was 28.7% (95% CI: 25.4, 32.1) and 19.7% (95% CI: 16.9, 22.8), respectively. The rates were consistently higher across age groups compared to the general population. Loneliness was associated with younger age, blindness, having other impairments, unemployment, and a history of bullying or abuse. In addition, higher scores on loneliness were associated with lower levels of life satisfaction (fully adjusted =-0.48, 95% CI: -0.55, -0.41).ConclusionsLoneliness is common in adults with VI. Strategies capable of reducing loneliness could improve life satisfaction among people who are blind or visually impaired.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据