Next Article in Journal
Impact of Stress on Periodontal Health: Literature Revision
Previous Article in Journal
Pelvic Organ Prolapse Syndrome and Lower Urinary Tract Symptom Update: What’s New?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Healthcare
Volume 11
Issue 10
10.3390/healthcare11101517
healthcare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Loneliness and Social Isolation among Transgender and Gender Diverse People

by
André Hajek
1,*,
Hans-Helmut König
1,
Marco Blessmann
2 and
Katharina Grupp
2
1
Department of Health Economics and Health Services Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg Center for Health Economics, 20246 Hamburg, Germany
2
Division of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2023, 11(10), 1517; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11101517
Submission received: 3 March 2023 / Revised: 18 May 2023 / Accepted: 19 May 2023 / Published: 22 May 2023
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Here, we report the prevalence of loneliness and social isolation and investigate the levels of loneliness and social isolation among transgender and gender diverse people using cross-sectional data from the HH-TPCHIGV study. Using the De Jong Gierveld tool, we assess loneliness, using the Bude and Lantermann tool, we assess perceived social isolation and using the Lubben Social Network Scale, we assess objective social isolation. The prevalence rate of loneliness was 83.3% (perceived social isolation: 77.7%; objective social isolation: 34.4%). Regressions revealed that favorable outcomes (i.e., lower loneliness levels, lower perceived social isolation, and lower objective social isolation) were consistently associated with higher school education. Beyond that, we identify an association between particularly poor health-related factors and higher loneliness and objective social isolation levels. We also report that unemployment was significantly associated with higher levels of perceived social isolation. In conclusion, we show high prevalence rates of loneliness and social isolation among transgender and gender diverse people. Additionally, important correlates (e.g., education, health-related factors, or unemployment) were identified. Such knowledge may provide help to address transgender and gender diverse people at risk for loneliness and social isolation.

1. Introduction

Transgender and gender diverse people identify with a different gender from their sex assigned at birth [1]. Trans feminine describes transgender people assigned a male sex at birth who identify as female and trans masculine describes transgender people assigned a female sex at birth who identify as men. For transgender and gender diverse people health inequities are multifactorial and include increased risks for systematic social and economic marginalization, stigma, and discrimination resulting in increased risk for various negative mental and physical health outcomes [2].
The minority stress theory provides a theory to acquire more information about the life experience of transgender and gender diverse people living in society [3,4]. The theory suggests that chronic internal and external stressors (e.g., internalized transphobia, perceived stigma, discrimination, rejection) of transgender and gender diverse people causes mental and physical health problems [5]. These mental and physical health problems include depression and loneliness [6].
Worldwide gender minorities become more visible. Transgender and gender diverse people are part of a socially marginalized group [7]. Because of chronic marginalization and isolation, individuals can feel lonely [8]. Even in the absence of social separation, the feeling of loneliness may result from an unfriendly environment that lacks affectionate care and help. Social isolation is associated with increased mortality and several illnesses, for example, cardiovascular and mental health diseases [9]. Objective social isolation is defined as having a low quantity and quality of contact with others. It can be measured using the number of persons in an individual’s social network [10]. Perceived social isolation refers to a feeling of not belonging to the society [11]. Loneliness is the feeling of discrepancy between actual and desired social relations [12]. Actual and perceived social isolation are both associated with increased risk for mortality and morbidity [13,14]. Thus, loneliness is associated with several negative health outcomes including coronary heart disease and stroke [15], dementia [16], poor mental health [9], and metabolic syndrome [17].
Studies on transgender and gender diverse people showed that loneliness was higher in transgender and gender diverse people living in Pakistan [8], Norway [18], the United States [19], and Australia [20] compared with cisgender peers. For example, Anderssen et al. [18] showed that 38–52% of binary transgender and gender diverse individuals reported often or very often either “lacking companionship,” “feeling left out” or “feeling isolated from others,” and that similar rates were observed for non-binary transgender people (38–48%), while the corresponding rates for cisgender males and females were 15–21% and 17–24%. Allen et al. [19] demonstrated among more than 4000 transgender, nonbinary, and gender-diverse adolescents in the United States that these people had higher scores for loneliness compared with cisgender peers. Moreover, Eres et al. [20] showed higher levels of loneliness, depression, and social anxiety in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and other sexual orientation and gender identity diverse people (LGBTQIA+) in Australia than the non-LGBTQIA+ comparison group.
To our best knowledge, there is a dearth of knowledge about the levels of loneliness and isolation among transgender and gender diverse people in Germany.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample

Cross-sectional data were taken from the HH-TPCHIGV study—which is a joint project of the “Department of Health Economics and Health Services Research” and the “Division for Plastic, Reconstructive, and Esthetic Surgery”. They are both located at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg (Germany). With regard to inclusion: transgender and gender diverse individuals who have joined together in self-help groups on Whatsapp and Facebook, among other places, in order to exchange information about trans-specific operations at the UKE in the Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery were surveyed.
No specific exclusion criteria (e.g., with regard to age) were applied. Data collection took place from April to October 2022. We used the online survey tool “Limesurvey” for programming, hosting, and performing the survey.
Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study. Approval for the study was provided by the Local Psychological Ethics Committee of the Center for Psychosocial Medicine of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (number: LPEK-0480).

2.2. Dependent Variables

To measure loneliness, the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness tool was used [21]. It consists of six items. Thereof, three items were recoded, whereas three items were not recoded. By averaging the items, a final score was computed. This final score ranged from 0 to 6, with higher values reflecting higher loneliness. Scores of 0 to 1 were used to categorize individuals as ‘not lonely’. In contrast, higher scores were used to categorize individuals as ‘lonely’—as suggested in prior research [22]. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.84 (McDonald’s omega was also 0.84). This tool has favorable psychometric characteristics [21].
The Bude and Lantermann tool was used to measure perceived social isolation [11]. It has four items. The score was computed by averaging the items. This score ranged from 0 to 6, with higher values corresponding to higher perceived social isolation. Analogously, we also categorized individuals as ‘not socially isolated (perceived)’ if scores ranged from 0 to 1 [23]. In contrast, they were categorized as ‘socially isolated (perceived)’ if their scores were greater. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89 and McDonald’s omega equaled 0.89.
To quantify objective social isolation, we used the 6-item version of the Lubben Social Network Scale (6-item version) [24]. Based on the six items, a sum score was created. It ranges from 0 to 30 (with higher values reflecting lower objective social isolation). In line with former recommendations [24], a score below 12 was used to classify individuals as ‘socially isolated (objective)’. In contrast, higher values were used to classify individuals as ‘not socially isolated (objective)’. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.80 and McDonald’s omega equaled 0.77). Favorable psychometric characteristics have been documented for this tool [24].

2.3. Determinants

Inspired by former research in this field [25,26,27], sociodemographic, lifestyle-related as well as health correlates were covered (in our regressions): age, marital situation (single; widowed; divorced; separately: married or in partnership; living together: married/in partnership), school level (without general school leaving certificate; intermediate school leaving certificate; secondary school diploma; currently in school; polytechnic secondary school; general or subject-specific university entrance qualification), employment situation (marginally employed (450-euro job or mini-job); retired; in retraining; unemployed; vocational training/apprenticeship; part-time employed; full-time employed; other), religious affiliation (non-denominational; Buddhism; Islam; Christianity; Other), having a migration background (no; yes), gender reassignment surgery (no; yes), sports activities (from: 1 (“no sports activity”) to 5 (“more than 4 h a week”), self-rated health (1 = very bad to 5 = very good, single-item question), and at least one chronic condition (no; yes).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

In the first step, the prevalence rate of loneliness, perceived social isolation, and objective social isolation were displayed (for certain important groups). Thereafter, multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine the determinants of the levels of loneliness, perceived social isolation, and objective social isolation.
We used a tool which was created by Shaw [28] to compute McDonald’s omega. A full-information maximum likelihood (FIML) approach was used to tackle missing data [29]. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value of 0.05 or smaller. Stata 16.1 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA) was used to conduct statistical analyses.

3. Results

3.1. Sample Characteristics, Prevalence Rates, and Pairwise Correlations for the Outcome Measures

The mean age was 30.4 years (19 to 63 years, SD: 9.6 years) in this sample. About half of the individuals included in the sample had at least one chronic condition. More than half of the individuals did not have a general or subject-specific university entrance qualification. Additional details regarding the sample characteristics are shown in Table 1.
More generally, the prevalence rates are shown in Table 1. We also reported prevalence rates by important groups. The prevalence rate of loneliness was 83.3% (perceived social isolation: 77.7%; objective social isolation: 34.4%). The prevalence rates oscillate between the groups examined. For instance, the prevalence rate of objective social isolation was 13.0% among individuals without chronic diseases, whereas it was 56.3% among individuals with at least one chronic disease. Please see Table 1 for further details.
The Pearson correlation between loneliness and perceived social isolation was r = 0.69, p < 0.001. Moreover, the Pearson correlation between loneliness and objective social isolation was r = −0.50, p < 0.001 (worth repeating that the negative sign just reflects that higher scores on the LSNS-6 tool correspond to lower objective social isolation). The Pearson correlation between perceived social isolation and objective social isolation was r = −0.37, p < 0.001.

3.2. Regression Analysis

In Table 2, the results of multiple linear regressions are given (outcomes: loneliness, perceived social isolation, and objective social isolation). Unstandardized beta-coefficients are shown in Table 2 (and robust standard errors are in parentheses). R2 varied from 0.30 (with objective social isolation as an outcome measure) to 0.35 (with perceived social isolation as an outcome measure). Regressions revealed that favorable outcomes (i.e., lower loneliness levels (β = −0.47, p < 0.01), lower perceived social isolation (β = −0.45, p < 0.05) and lower objective social isolation (β = 2.67, p < 0.05)) were only consistently associated with higher school education.
Beyond that, higher loneliness levels were significantly associated with being unmarried (β = −0.30, p < 0.05), already having a gender reassignment surgery (β = 0.30, p < 0.05), more than 4 h a week of sports activities (compared to no sports activity, β = 0.36, p < 0.05), and poor self-rated health (β = −0.18, p < 0.05). Moreover, higher perceived social isolation levels were associated with being unemployed (e.g., compared to full-time employed, β = −0.75, p < 0.001), and 1–2 h a week of sports activities (compared to no sports activity, β = 0.45, p < 0.05). Additionally, higher objective social isolation levels were also associated with having at least one chronic condition (compared to the absence of chronic conditions, β = −3.73, p < 0.01).

4. Discussion

Using data from a hospital-based sample, our aim was to examine the prevalence of loneliness and social isolation and to investigate the levels of loneliness and social isolation among transgender and gender diverse people in Germany. Here, we identify high to very high prevalence rates of loneliness and social isolation among transgender and gender diverse people. Moreover, higher levels of loneliness and objective social isolation were associated with poor health-related factors and lower school education. Our study adds to our current knowledge by analyzing the prevalence of loneliness and social isolation in a cohort of transgender people in Germany.
Our result of the high prevalence of loneliness and social isolation in transgender and gender diverse people in Germany is consistent with the literature currently demonstrating that levels of loneliness were higher in transgender and gender diverse people compared with cisgender people in several other countries [8,18,19]. For example, Batool et al. [8] described a mean of 47.6 among 200 transgender and gender diverse people and a mean of 39.7 among 100 cisgender people in Pakistan using the UCLA Loneliness Scale. Anderssen et al. [18] showed that the level of loneliness (The Three-Item Loneliness Scale) was significantly higher in transgender and gender diverse people as compared to cisgender people in Norway. Rutter et al. [30] performed a cross-sectional analysis including 4592 American adolescents and showed that transgender and gender diverse adolescents had higher rates of loneliness than the female and male adolescents in the sample. Moreover, Allen et al. [19] surveyed a US nationally representative sample of 4575 adolescents (aged 13–18 years) and showed that transgender and gender diverse and nonbinary youth had higher scores for loneliness as compared to cisgender people. Our result indicates a vulnerable gender minority population group in need of special attention in Germany as well as in other countries.
The prevalence rates should also be seen in the light of a potential positive marginality [31]. For example, adopting a marginalized identity can improve the life of transgender and gender diverse people by increasing their self-confidence, positive body image, and sense of serenity. Moreover, belonging to a minority group can facilitate the development of meaningful relationships with others [31].
Our study aimed to identify determinants of loneliness and social isolation among transgender and gender diverse people. In general, the feeling of loneliness often leads to coping behaviors to reduce these feelings. Coping behaviors attempt to manage stressful situations and include adaptive and maladaptive strategies. Adaptive strategies include for example active problem solving, and seeking help and support. Using these strategies results in enhanced psychological health and self-esteem [32]. In comparison to adaptive strategies, maladaptive strategies such as denial or avoidance, substance abuse, aggression, and escape often result in enhanced levels of distress for individuals [32].
In our study, levels of loneliness and social isolation were reduced in individuals with higher school education. It can be speculated that higher school education may serve as a protective factor for isolation and loneliness. Previously, authors have shown that people with higher school education have better-coping skills to deal with negative experiences compared to individuals with lower school education [33]. Uncertainty exists, however, about the specific elements of education that influence loneliness and social isolation. Another way to explain this link may be that higher loneliness is associated with higher levels of discrimination from associates who belong to educationally disadvantaged classes. More precisely, if one has a lower level of education, one may associate with people who also have a lower level of education. If those people discriminate against transgender and gender diverse people, one may face additional discrimination. However, additional research is required to test these pathways.
Interestingly, our study also showed that transgender and gender diverse people, who are unmarried were characterized by higher levels of loneliness, and those who were unemployed were characterized by higher levels of perceived social isolation. Lack of support (in different areas of life such as family situations or labor force participation) is associated with factors such as low general self-esteem or low mental health [33,34].
Additionally, our data indicate that transgender and gender diverse people, who have undergone gender reassignment surgery feel lonelier. To our knowledge, this is the first study analyzing the levels of loneliness and social isolation in operated transgender and gender diverse people. Previously, van de Grift et al. [35] suggested that multiple stressors occur throughout an individual’s gender-affirming treatment resulting in a significant number of relapses or persistence of psychiatric problems of people. Such factors may contribute to higher loneliness levels. However, future research is required to examine this association in further detail.
Moreover, we found a significant association between having at least a chronic disease and higher levels of objective social isolation. Several factors and problems are associated with chronic illnesses and might cause higher objective isolation levels. For example, people with chronic illnesses usually require more care [35]. The higher demand for care of individuals with chronic conditions may also reflect the fact that their social relationships are more frequently restricted to professionals (e.g., outpatient care services)—particularly in times of the COVID-19 pandemic [36]. This could contribute to dissatisfaction (in terms of social needs) and thus intensify feelings of social isolation [36].
Moreover, poor self-rated health was associated with higher loneliness levels in our study. A potential explanation for this association may be as follows: Prior research has shown that functional impairment is a key factor to explain self-rated health [37]. By restricting the opportunities for social activities due to such functional impairment, feelings of loneliness may develop in the affected individuals [38].
Moreover, gender minority people/individuals experience many barriers to accessing resources including healthcare and education, and often face discrimination and negative experiences when seeking support. According to the minority stress model [39], the behavior that results from negative experiences places minority gender and gender diverse people at further risk, perpetuating a cycle of inadequate care, deteriorating health, and a diminished sense of well-being [40]. Several stressors have a negative impact on the ability to cope and consequently, their health-averse behaviors increase leading to further victimization and discrimination [41]. Thus, transgender and gender diverse people face isolation resulting in feelings of isolation with increased risk for physical and psychical health. In the case of social isolation and feeling of loneliness, adaptive coping strategies and resilience can help to improve the situation.
It should be noted that Bailey emphasized that the minority stress theory needs reconsideration [42]. It has several limitations (e.g., this model relied solely on self-report data to measure stigmatization) [42]. Alternative models that acknowledge temperament could deserve more attention [43].
When assessing our current findings, it is important to keep in mind several strengths and limitations. Widely used tools with favorable psychometric properties were used to quantify loneliness, perceived social isolation, and objective social isolation. Moreover, a wide array of correlates was explored and FIML was used to address missing data. It should be acknowledged that this study has a cross-sectional design. This makes it difficult to clarify the directionality of the factors associated with loneliness, perceived social isolation, and objective social isolation. For example, the outcomes used may also contribute to chronic conditions [44]. Future longitudinal studies are required to confirm our present findings. Additionally, data were taken from a hospital-based sample - which can have consequences for the generalizability. Furthermore, also because the sample size of our current study was quite low, large, nationally representative studies are needed to verify our results.

5. Conclusions and Future Research

In our study, high prevalence rates of loneliness and social isolation were shown among transgender and gender diverse people. These high levels of loneliness and objective social isolation were associated with poor health-related factors and lower school education. Such knowledge can assist to address transgender and gender diverse people with a high likelihood of loneliness and social isolation.
With regard to future research, qualitative studies are of particular interest to better understand the pressing topic of loneliness and social isolation among transgender and gender diverse people.

Author Contributions

A.H.: conceptualization; data curation; methodology; project administration, visualization; roles/writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, formal analysis. H.-H.K.: resources; writing—review and editing; visualization. M.B.: writing—review and editing; K.G.: conceptualization; project administration, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We acknowledge financial support from the Open Access Publication Fund of UKE—Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf and DFG—German Research Foundation.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Local Psychological Ethics Committee of the Center for Psychosocial Medicine of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (number: LPEK-0480).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions involving patient data but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. American Psychological Association. Psychological practice guidelines with transgender and gender nonconforming clients. Am. Psychol. 2015, 70, 832–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Newcomb, M.E.; Hill, R.; Buehler, K.; Ryan, D.T.; Whitton, S.W.; Mustanski, B. High burden of mental health problems, substance use, violence, and related psychosocial factors in transgender, non-binary, and gender diverse youth and young adults. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2020, 49, 645–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Baams, L.; Dubas, J.S.; Russell, S.T.; Buikema, R.L.; van Aken, M.A. Minority stress, perceived burdensomeness, and depressive symptoms among sexual minority youth. J. Adolesc. 2018, 66, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Singh, A.A. Social justice and advocacy for transgender and gender-diverse clients. Psychiatr. Clin. 2017, 40, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  5. Scandurra, C.; Bochicchio, V.; Amodeo, A.L.; Esposito, C.; Valerio, P.; Maldonato, N.M.; Bacchini, D.; Vitelli, R. Internalized transphobia, resilience, and mental health: Applying the Psychological Mediation Framework to Italian transgender individuals. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Sadiq, S.; Bashir, A. Relationship between perceived discrimination and loneliness among transgender: Mediating role of coping mechanism. Int. J. Res. Stud. Psychol. 2014, 3, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yadegarfard, M.; Meinhold-Bergmann, M.E.; Ho, R. Family rejection, social isolation, and loneliness as predictors of negative health outcomes (depression, suicidal ideation, and sexual risk behavior) among Thai male-to-female transgender adolescents. J. LGBT Youth 2014, 11, 347–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Batool, S.; Rowland, D.L. The Critical Role of Coping Strategies in Moderating Loneliness and Quality of Life: Parallel and Unique Processes among Transgender and Heterosexual Cisgender People in Pakistan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Leigh-Hunt, N.; Bagguley, D.; Bash, K.; Turner, V.; Turnbull, S.; Valtorta, N.; Caan, W. An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation and loneliness. Public Health 2017, 152, 157–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hajek, A.; König, H.-H. Do loneliness and perceived social isolation reduce expected longevity and increase the frequency of dealing with death and dying? Longitudinal findings based on a nationally representative sample. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2021, 22, 1720–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bude, H.; Lantermann, E.-D. Soziale exklusion und exklusionsempfinden. KZfSS Kölner Z. Soziologie Soz. 2006, 58, 233–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wenger, G.C.; Davies, R.; Shahtahmasebi, S.; Scott, A. Social isolation and loneliness in old age: Review and model refinement. Ageing Soc. 1996, 16, 333–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Holt-Lunstad, J.; Smith, T.B.; Baker, M.; Harris, T.; Stephenson, D. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2015, 10, 227–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Luanaigh, C.Ó.; Lawlor, B.A. Loneliness and the health of older people. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 2008, 23, 1213–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Valtorta, N.K.; Kanaan, M.; Gilbody, S.; Ronzi, S.; Hanratty, B. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for coronary heart disease and stroke: Systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observational studies. Heart 2016, 102, 1009–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kuiper, J.S.; Zuidersma, M.; Voshaar, R.C.O.; Zuidema, S.U.; van den Heuvel, E.R.; Stolk, R.P.; Smidt, N. Social relationships and risk of dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies. Ageing Res. Rev. 2015, 22, 39–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Whisman, M.A. Loneliness and the metabolic syndrome in a population-based sample of middle-aged and older adults. Health Psychol. 2010, 29, 550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Anderssen, N.; Sivertsen, B.; Lønning, K.J.; Malterud, K. Life satisfaction and mental health among transgender students in Norway. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Allen, B.J.; Stratman, Z.E.; Kerr, B.R.; Zhao, Q.; Moreno, M.A. Associations between psychosocial measures and digital media use among transgender youth: Cross-sectional study. JMIR Pediatr. Parent. 2021, 4, e25801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Eres, R.; Postolovski, N.; Thielking, M.; Lim, M.H. Loneliness, mental health, and social health indicators in LGBTQIA+ Australians. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 2021, 91, 358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gierveld, J.D.J.; Tilburg, T.V. A 6-item scale for overall, emotional, and social loneliness: Confirmatory tests on survey data. Res. Aging 2006, 28, 582–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. De Jong Gierveld, J.; Van Tilburg, T. The De Jong Gierveld short scales for emotional and social loneliness: Tested on data from 7 countries in the UN generations and gender surveys. Eur. J. Ageing 2010, 7, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Hajek, A.; König, H.-H. Prevalence and correlates of loneliness, perceived and objective social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence from a representative survey in Germany. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2022, 57, 1969–1978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Lubben, J.; Blozik, E.; Gillmann, G.; Iliffe, S.; von Renteln Kruse, W.; Beck, J.C.; Stuck, A.E. Performance of an abbreviated version of the Lubben Social Network Scale among three European community-dwelling older adult populations. Gerontologist 2006, 46, 503–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dahlberg, L.; McKee, K.J.; Frank, A.; Naseer, M. A systematic review of longitudinal risk factors for loneliness in older adults. Aging Ment. Health 2022, 26, 225–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ejiri, M.; Kawai, H.; Ishii, K.; Oka, K.; Obuchi, S. Predictors of older adults’ objectively measured social isolation: A systematic review of observational studies. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2021, 94, 104357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hajek, A.; König, H.-H. Which factors contribute to loneliness among older Europeans? Findings from the survey of health, ageing and retirement in Europe: Determinants of loneliness. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2020, 89, 104080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Shaw, B.P. Meeting assumptions in the estimation of reliability. Stata J. 2021, 21, 1021–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Enders, C.K. The performance of the full information maximum likelihood estimator in multiple regression models with missing data. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2001, 61, 713–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rutter, L.A.; Thompson, H.M.; Howard, J.; Riley, T.N.; De Jesús-Romero, R.; Lorenzo-Luaces, L. Social media use, physical activity, and internalizing symptoms in adolescence: Cross-sectional analysis. JMIR Ment. Health 2021, 8, e26134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Shuster, S.M.; Westbrook, L. Reducing the Joy Deficit in Sociology: A Study of Transgender Joy. Soc. Probl. 2022, spac034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Brook, J.S.; Brook, D.W.; Wn, P.T.; Miteman, M.; Masci, J.R.; de Catalogne, J.; Roberto, J.; Amundsen, F. Coping with AIDS: A longitudinal study. Am. J. Addict. 1997, 6, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Reisner, S.L.; Poteat, T.; Keatley, J.; Cabral, M.; Mothopeng, T.; Dunham, E.; Holland, C.E.; Max, R.; Baral, S.D. Global health burden and needs of transgender populations: A review. Lancet 2016, 388, 412–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Winter, S.; Diamond, M.; Green, J.; Karasic, D.; Reed, T.; Whittle, S.; Wylie, K. Transgender people: Health at the margins of society. Lancet 2016, 388, 390–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. van de Grift, T.C.; Elaut, E.; Cerwenka, S.C.; Cohen-Kettenis, P.T.; Kreukels, B.P. Surgical satisfaction, quality of life, and their association after gender-affirming surgery: A follow-up study. J. Sex Marital. Ther. 2018, 44, 138–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hajek, A.; Grupp, K.; Aarabi, G.; Gyasi, R.M.; Freak-Poli, R.; Kretzler, B.; König, H.-H. Long-term care need, loneliness, and perceived social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from the German Ageing Survey. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2023, 35, 1377–1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lazarevič, P.; Brandt, M. Diverging ideas of health? Comparing the basis of health ratings across gender, age, and country. Soc. Sci. Med. 2020, 267, 112913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Phillips, D.M.; Finkel, D.; Petkus, A.J.; Muñoz, E.; Pahlen, S.; Johnson, W.; Reynolds, C.A.; Pedersen, N. Longitudinal analyses indicate bidirectional associations between loneliness and health. Aging Ment. Health 2022, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Meyer, I.H. Resilience in the study of minority stress and health of sexual and gender minorities. Psychol. Sex. Orientat. Gend. Divers. 2015, 2, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Crissman, H.P.; Stroumsa, D.; Kobernik, E.K.; Berger, M.B. Gender and frequent mental distress: Comparing transgender and non-transgender individuals’ self-rated mental health. J. Women’s Health 2019, 28, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Veale, J.F.; Peter, T.; Travers, R.; Saewyc, E.M. Enacted stigma, mental health, and protective factors among transgender youth in Canada. Transgender Health 2017, 2, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Michael Bailey, J. The minority stress model deserves reconsideration, not just extension. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2020, 49, 2265–2268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zucker, K.J.; Lawrence, A.A.; Kreukels, B.P. Gender dysphoria in adults. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2016, 12, 217–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Hajek, A.; Kretzler, B.; König, H.-H. Multimorbidity, loneliness, and social isolation. A systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. Prevalence: loneliness, perceived social isolation, and objective social isolation among several subgroups.
Table 1. Prevalence: loneliness, perceived social isolation, and objective social isolation among several subgroups.
nLonelinessp-ValuePerceived Social Isolationp-ValueObjective Social Isolationp-Value
Total samplen = 9683.3% 77.7% 34.4%
Age bracket 0.67 0.28 0.24
    18 to 29 yearsn = 5384.9% 83.0% 30.2%
    30 years and oldern = 3881.6% 73.7% 42.1%
Family situation 0.08 0.69 0.92
    Living separately: married or in partnership; divorced; single; widowedn = 4989.8% 77.6% 34.7%
    Married or in partnershipn = 4276.2% 81.0% 35.7%
School education <0.01 0.14 <0.001
    Absence of general or subject-specific university entrance qualificationn = 5292.3% 84.6% 50.0%
    Presence of general or subject-specific university entrance qualificationn = 3971.8% 71.8% 15.4%
Labor force participation 0.44 0.08 0.67
    Unemployedn = 1693.8% 93.8% 37.5%
    Full-time employedn = 3479.4% 67.6% 29.4%
    Othern = 4182.9% 82.9% 39.0%
Migration background 0.87 0.31 0.93
    Non = 8083.8% 77.5% 35.0%
    Yesn = 1181.8% 90.9% 36.4%
Having a religious affiliation 0.67 0.58 0.47
    Non-denominationaln = 5384.9% 81.1% 32.1%
    Having a religious affiliationn = 3881.6% 76.3% 39.5%
Already having a gender reassignment surgery 0.91 0.78 0.91
    Non = 5083.3% 79.2% 35.4%
    Yesn = 3884.2% 81.6% 34.2%
Chronic diseases 0.27 0.08 <0.001
    Absence of at least one chronic diseasen = 5279.2% 70.2% 13.0%
    Presence of at least one chronic diseasen = 5087.5% 85.1% 55.3%
Notes: With regard to p-values, Chi2 tests were conducted.
Table
Table 2. Correlates of loneliness, subjective isolation, and objective social isolation. Results of multiple linear regressions.
Table 2. Correlates of loneliness, subjective isolation, and objective social isolation. Results of multiple linear regressions.
Independent VariablesLonelinessPerceived Social IsolationObjective Social Isolation
Age (in years)−0.00−0.02 +0.01
(0.01)(0.01)(0.07)
Family situation:—Living together: Married or in partnership (Reference category: Other including [living separately: married or in partnership; divorced; single; widowed])−0.30 *0.04−0.63
(0.14)(0.16)(1.21)
School education:—General or subject-specific university entrance qualification (e.g., “Abitur”) (Reference: Lower school education including [Completion of polytechnic secondary school; Currently in school education; Secondary school diploma; Intermediate school leaving certificate (e.g., “Realschulabschluss”); Without general school leaving certificate])−0.47 **−0.45 *2.67 *
(0.15)(0.18)(1.21)
Religious affiliation: —Having a religious affiliation including [Buddhism; Christianity; Islam; Other] (Reference category: Non-denominational)−0.17−0.070.36
(0.15)(0.18)(1.18)
Labor force participation:—Full-time employed (Reference category: Unemployed)−0.14−0.75 ***−0.20
(0.17)(0.22)(1.72)
— Other including [Part-time employed; Marginally employed (450-euro job or mini-job); Retired/early retirement; Other; In retraining; In vocational training/apprenticeship]−0.20−0.56 **0.74
(0.17)(0.21)(1.48)
Already having a gender reassignment surgery:—Yes (Reference category: No)0.30 *0.06−1.69
(0.15)(0.17)(1.10)
Frequency of sports activities:—Less than one hour a week (Reference category: No sports activity)−0.070.001.05
(0.20)(0.24)(1.54)
—Regularly, 1–2 h a week0.040.45 *0.79
(0.17)(0.23)(1.64)
—Regularly, 3–4 h a week−0.020.041.05
(0.20)(0.22)(1.46)
—Regularly, more than 4 h a week0.36 *0.280.15
(0.18)(0.26)(1.73)
Migration background: —Yes (Reference category: No)0.160.06−0.33
(0.22)(0.26)(1.50)
Self-rated health (from 1 = very bad to 5 = very good)−0.18 *−0.151.03
(0.08)(0.12)(0.73)
Having at least one chronic disease: —Yes (Reference category: No)0.110.31 +−3.73 **
(0.17)(0.19)(1.30)
Constant3.50 ***3.97 ***10.98 ***
(0.42)(0.63)(3.21)
R20.340.350.30
Observations104104104
Notes: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, + p < 0.10; With regard to addressing missing data, FIML was used. Unstandardized beta-coefficients are displayed; robust standard errors are in parentheses.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hajek, A.; König, H.-H.; Blessmann, M.; Grupp, K. Loneliness and Social Isolation among Transgender and Gender Diverse People. Healthcare 2023, 11, 1517. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11101517

AMA Style

Hajek A, König H-H, Blessmann M, Grupp K. Loneliness and Social Isolation among Transgender and Gender Diverse People. Healthcare. 2023; 11(10):1517. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11101517

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hajek, André, Hans-Helmut König, Marco Blessmann, and Katharina Grupp. 2023. "Loneliness and Social Isolation among Transgender and Gender Diverse People" Healthcare 11, no. 10: 1517. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11101517

APA Style

Hajek, A., König, H. -H., Blessmann, M., & Grupp, K. (2023). Loneliness and Social Isolation among Transgender and Gender Diverse People. Healthcare, 11(10), 1517. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11101517

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop