Young adults with vision impairment in India: Loneliness and social networks

Abstract

AbstractPurposeTo examine the prevalence of loneliness and associated factors in young adults with vision impairment (VI), including quality of life (QoL) in India.MethodsTwo hundred and three VI young adults (18–35 years) and 219 age‐matched non‐VI (controls) adults completed the loneliness scale, WHOQOL‐BREF, Social Network Index (SNI) (network diversity, people in network size and number of embedded network subscales) and questions regarding sociodemographic characteristics and independent mobility. Rasch analysis was used to validate the questionnaires and interval‐level scores were generated. Generalised linear models were used to estimate independent associations of sociodemographic factors, VI characteristics, social networks and QoL with loneliness.ResultsThe prevalence of moderate and severe loneliness in the VI group was 10% (95% CI: 6.5, 15.4) and 4.4% (95% CI: 2.0, 8.2), respectively, and higher than that of controls. The VI group had a worse loneliness score than controls (−1.66 ± 2.25 vs. −2.13 ± 1.85 logits; p = 0.03). Those with ≤12 years and >12 years of education had loneliness scores of −1.58 ± 2.45 and −1.82 ± 1.99 logits, respectively (p = 0.01). Compared with controls, the VI group reported fewer extended family members, neighbours and friends leading to significantly smaller networks and network diversity (all p < 0.001). Loneliness scores demonstrated a significant correlation with only two SNI subscales for both groups: people in network size (r = −0.28 for VI; r = −0.30 for non‐VI; p < 0.001 for both) and number of embedded networks (r = −0.22 for VI; r = −0.21 for non‐VI; p = 0.002 for both). Both education (β = 0.45; p = 0.04) and QoL (β = −0.27, p = 0.02) were predictors of loneliness.ConclusionsLoneliness was commonly experienced by young VI adults and was higher among those with lower levels of education. Loneliness decreased with the presence of a larger number of people in network, suggesting that interventions to increase social activity and participation may be valuable in young VI adults.