CHAPTER 5: RESULTS
5.4 SOCIAL CAPITAL
5.4.1 Network structure – size and density
largely driven by the emotional loneliness with scores of 4.7 (sd 1.3) and 3.8 (sd 0.9) respectively (U=2.3, p=.021). The same pattern was seen in emotional and overall loneliness with significant differences across respondents with no mental disorder as per the K6 (3.6 sd 0.8 and 7.4 sd 1.3) and those respondents with some disorder (4.4 sd 1.1 and 8.5 sd 1.6) (K=16.2, p<.001).
There was also a medium positive correlation between K6 and loneliness (r=- .492, p=<.001), with medium levels of increased loneliness associated with medium levels of increased psychological distress, and 24.2% of the variation in psychological distress score being explained by the presence of loneliness. This correlation again was driven by a positive correlation between K6 and emotional loneliness (r=- .533, p=<.001), with high levels of increased emotional loneliness associated with high increases of psychological distress and 28.4% of the variation in psychological distress score being explained by the presence of loneliness.
Network structure is measured by the number of relatives in the network, the density of the networks and the type of contact the respondents engage in with the members of their social network. Network structure indicates the possibility of the respondent to access resources, especially when consideration is given to the implementation of a health promotion programme.
Seventeen (22.7%) of the respondents had no children, with the majority of childless respondents 12 (27.3%) being in the older old group. Twenty eight (28, 37.3%) had either one (1) or two (2) children, 26 (34.7%) had three (3) or more children. The average number of living children in the younger old was 2.0 and 1.9 in the older old age group. Similarly the greatest number of living great or grandchildren (17, 38.6%) was found in the older old group, however there were a greater number of respondents without great or grandchildren (24, 32.0%). The range was from zero to 23 great/grandchildren. Thirteen of the respondents (17.3%) reported to have had no living relatives, with the numbers evenly distributed between the younger and the older old. The average number of living grand / great-grandchildren for the younger old was 3.0 and 3.7 for the older old. The average number of living relatives was greater in the older old group (8) as compared to the younger old (4). See Table 14:
Social network size for statistics on social network size.
Table 14: Social Network Size
Social networks
Total number of relatives (mean, sd)
Living children (n=71) (missing n=4) 1.9 (sd1.5)
Living grand/great-grandchildren (n=71) (missing n=4) 3.4 (sd 4.2)
Living relatives (n=72) (missing n=3) 6.6 (sd 10.4)
No married couple participated in the survey and, 56 (74.7%) were either single or widowed; however the network was comprised of five spouses, the smallest part of the respondents’ networks was community group (36, 48.0%).
Social network size was measured by the number of people in a respondent’s core discussion network and primary group members in the network as measured by the
number of children / great/grandchildren / relatives the respondents identified. The average number of people listed in respondents’ core discussion networks ranged from 0 to 9, with a mean of 5.9 members (sd 1.6). The average number of primary group members in the social network ranged from 0 to 5, with a mean of 2.4 (sd 0.9) (Table 15: Key social networks indicators).
There were significant differences in primary network size between males (2.7 sd 0.8) and females (2.1 sd 1.1) (U=2.0, p=.048) which may possibly be linked to the greater longevity of females. Similarly, there were significant differences in network size which was driven by the primary network with the widowed group reporting the highest network average (6.4 sd 1.5), followed by the divorced (6.0 sd 1.7) and the smallest average network size was those who had never married (4.4 sd 1.4) (K=12.9, p=.002).
Table 15: Key social networks indicators
Item Details of Item Average
sd Network size Number of people listed in respondent’s core discussion
network Range: 0 to 9
5.9 sd 1.6 Volume of contact with
network member
Respondents were asked how often they contact each alter.
Eight possible responses range from “less than once a year”
to “every day.” Responses were transformed to estimates of number of days of contact per year with each alter (e.g.,
“every day” = 365). Thereafter the estimates were added across alters to get overall contact volume. Range: 1 to 1,877.
419.8 sd 340.5
Closeness to others Average response to: “How close do you feel is your relationship with [name]?” Responses range from “not very close” (= 1) to “extremely close” (= 4).
1.56 sd 0.6
Primary group members in network
Number of people listed in the network who is spouse, partner, or (step-) children. Range: 0 to 5.
2.4 sd 0.9 Neighbourly socializing Frequent contact with friend and neighbours 2.3 sd 1.3 OSLO-3 OSLO1: Count on people that could be relied on. Range:
“None” (=1) to “6 or more” (=4)
OSLO2: Amount of concern shown to. Range: “No concern &
interest” (=1) to “A lot of concern & interest” (=5).
OSLO3: Easily can get practical help from others. Range:
”Very difficult” (=1) to “very easy” (=5) Total Social support
2.6 sd 0.8
4.2 sd 1.0 3.9 sd 1.1 10.8 sd 2.2
The network density of each of the respondents was measured by their frequency of contact with those in their interpersonal network (relatives and friends) and those in their institutional network (healthcare professionals, community group and religious leader). This analysis showed the amount of interconnectedness exercised by the respondents in time intervals from annually to daily in the past 12 months. The average volume of contact reported by the respondents was contact on 420 days (sd 340.5) in a given year (Table 16: Key social networks indicators).
The frequency of contact of respondent’s with individual people in their network is reflected in Figure 4(Network frequency of contact). Friends (71, 94.7%) were the most frequently occurring contact for the network members, followed by doctor (66, 88.0%).
Figure 4: Network frequency of contact
The network member/s that the respondents contacted frequently (once a week to daily) was the respondents’ spouse (4, 80.0%), community group (25, 69.4%) followed by children (33, 57.9%). The religious leader was more frequently contacted by the older old persons (21, 38.2%) as compared to the younger old (13. 23.6%).
The healthcare providers(doctors and nurses) were the least frequently contacted,
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Spouse Child/Children Great/Grandchikdren Other relative Friends Nurse Doctor Community group Religious leader
with only five respondents, four of them older old persons, making contact between daily to once a week with their doctors.
Volume of contact had a significant association with loneliness, with 145 days less contact with people who were rated as socially lonely compared to those who were not socially lonely (U=2.8, p=.005).