1. C HRONIC VS. T EMPORARY L ONELINESS : S OCIO - DEMOGRAPHIC, HEALTH AND FAMILIAL CHARACTERISTICS Dr. Sharon Shiovitz-Ezra Mr. Rafael Nechemia The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

2. L ONELINESS Vs. S OCIAL I SOLATION

3. P REVALENCE OF LONELINESS Figure1. Percentage of SHARE participants reporting substantial Loneliness: almost all of the time or most of the time over the last week * Adopted from Sundstrom, Fransson, Malmberg,& Davey, 2009 (based on SHARE wave1)

4. L ONELINESS S TATUS Transient loneliness - reflects the most frequent appearance of the phenomenon, consequent upon common happenings and is limited by time Situational loneliness occurs after experiencing stressful life events, such as widowhood, and is considered to be less detrimental and more temporal chronic loneliness is a more stable state that results from the inability to develop significant social ties over time

5. O BJECTIVES (1) to explore the prevalence of chronic versus temporary loneliness among older adults in Israel. (2) to examine socio-demographic, health and familial correlates of chronically versus temporarily lonely people in Israel.

6. M ETHODS The current analysis uses waves 1 & 2 of SHARE Israel. The sample composed of respondents who provided valid responses to the loneliness item in both waves. This resulted in total in N=392

7. L ONELINESS CATEGORIES Respondents are classified in the "not lonely " category if reported not lonely in both waves; to the temporarily lonely category when reported lonely in only one wave and chronically lonely when repeatedly reported lonely in the 1 & 2 waves.

8. C HARACTERISTICS Socio-demographic characteristics: age, gender, ethnicity (Jewish/not Jewish). Health characteristics: self-rated health, chronic morbidity (2+ chronic illnesses/<2), Disability in IADL (1+/<1 ), Depression (Euro-D). Familial characteristics: marital status (married/not married), parents still alive (yes/no), having siblings (yes/no), receive appreciation from family. Gathered in the 2005-6 SHARE Israel wave.

9. F INDINGS : PREVALENCE 57%

10. F INDINGS : DEPRESSION - LONELINESS BIVARIATE ASSOCIATION Not lonelyTemporarily lonelyChronically lonely Depression

11. F INDINGS FROM MULTINOMIAL REGRESSION Model 3 Model 2 Model 1 Model 3 Model 2 Model 1 1.02 1.03***1.05 1.08**1.10** Age 0.19***0.23***0.26*0.16** 0.390.38*** Jewish 0.81**0.700.59*1.03 0.600.4* Men 1.24** 1.80*** 1.69*** Depression 1.050.99 1.04 0.80 Self-rated health 0.61+0.62+0.63 0.74 Chronic illness (2+) 1.631.812.04 2.94 * Disability (IADL, 1+) 0.820.43** Appreciation from family 0.770.44 Have siblings 1.051.79 Parents still alive 2.38*9.09*** Not living with a partner Chronic Loneliness (n=32)Temporary Loneliness (n=136) The reference group is “no reported loneliness” (n=224) Nagekerke R square: model 1 – 0.149, model 2 – 0.307, model 3 – 0.357

12. IMPLICATIONS * The longitudinal SHARE Israel allows us to address and evaluate an under-examined typology that is nonetheless central to understanding loneliness. * Differentiating between different types of a phenomenon such as loneliness encourages a more sensitive perspective. * It can lead to the adoption of more suitable interventions that relate to the specific nature of the loneliness type.