N-household caregiver; out-of-household Sutezolid web caregiverDe Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale (eight items)cross-sectionalNorwegian
N-household caregiver; out-of-household caregiverDe Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale (eight products)cross-sectionalNorwegian Life Course, Ageing and Generation studyn = 11,047; M: 45.0, SD: 11.0, 254; 51.2Hawkley (2020) [38]United Statesspousal caregiver (yes/no)UCLA Loneliness Scale (3 items)longitudinal (two waves from 2010 to 2015)National Social Life, Well being and Aging Projectn = 970; 64: 32.0 654: 46.8 754: 19.9 85: 1.five ; 50.0Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Well being 2021, 18,six ofTable two. Cont.Initial Author Nation Assessment of Informal Care current caregiver; former caregiver; non-caregiver dichotomous (yes/no) Assessment of Loneliness or Social Isolation New York University Loneliness Scale (three items) going out as well little Study Kind longitudinal (four waves in the course of 4 years) cross-sectional Sample Qualities Sample Size; Age; Olesoxime supplier Females in Total Sample n = 143; M: 69.3, SD: eight.9 Female: not specified n = 4041; M: 71.five; 61.1 Final results With regards to the graphical presentation, both former and present caregivers had larger levels of loneliness than a manage group. Logistic regression didn’t reveal a substantial association between caregiving and social isolation.Robinson-Whelen (2001) [39] Robison (2009) (Robison et al., 2009) [40]United Statescaregivers and handle participants Connecticut Long-Term Care Desires AssessmentUnited States Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain, and SwitzerlandWagner (2018) [41]spousal caregiver (yes/no)UCLA Loneliness Scale (three things)cross-sectionalSurvey of Overall health, Ageing and Retirement in Europen = 29,458; M: 64.5 SD: 9.four 305; 50.4According to regression analysis, spousal care was correlated with improved levels of loneliness (= 0.12, p 0.001).Zwar (2020) [11]Germanynot reporting care at baseline but possessing began to accomplish so at follow-uploneliness: De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale (six items)social isolation: instrument from Bude and Lantermann (2006) (Bude and Lantermann, 2006) (four products)longitudinal (two waves from 2014 to 2017)German Ageing Surveyn = 8658; M: 65.9 SD: ten.6; 54.5Fixed-effects regression found caregiving to become substantially connected with greater levels of loneliness amongst men (= 0.93, p 0.01), but not with social isolation.Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18,7 ofIn the subsequent sections, the results are displayed as follows: 1. Informal caregiving and loneliness (cross-sectional research, thereafter longitudinal research), and 2. Informal caregiving and social isolation (cross-sectional research, thereafter longitudinal research). three.2. Informal Caregiving and Loneliness In sum, n = 11 research examined the association between informal caregiving and loneliness (six cross-sectional studies and 5 longitudinal research). With regard to cross-sectional studies, 4 studies identified an association between caregiving and elevated levels of loneliness [33,35,37,41], whereas one particular study discovered no association amongst these variables [32]. Additionally, a single study found an association amongst caregiving in addition to a decreased likelihood of loneliness [34]. However, this study was carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic. With regard to longitudinal studies, 3 research located an association between caregiving and improved loneliness levels [11,36,39], whereas two studies did not identify considerable variations [14,38]. Among the three studies which located considerable variations only identified these amongst males, but not females [11]. three.3. Informal Caregivin.
