Skip to main content

Table 2 Association between geographical characteristics and individual-based loneliness (multilevel logistic regression)

From: Lonely places or lonely people? Investigating the relationship between loneliness and place of residence

 Model AModel BModel C
OR (95%CI), p-valueOR (95%CI), p-valueOR (95%CI), p-value
Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) (ref = 1st quintile –least deprived)2nd quintile1.44 (1.13–1.85), 0.0041.26 (0.97–1.64), 0.0871.17 (0.88–1.56), 0.281
3rd quintile1.36 (1.05–1.78), 0.0211.28 (0.97–1.70), 0.0861.30 (0.97–1.76), 0.083
4th quintile1.54 (1.17–2.04), 0.0021.19 (0.88–1.60), 0.2501.09 (0.78–1.50), 0.607
5th quintile-most deprived2.0 (1.48–2.71), < 0.0011.38 (0.99–1.92), 0.0561.13 (0.78–1.61), 0.520
p-value for trend< 0.0010.0960.532
Urban/rural character (ref = Urban)Town and fringe0.99 (0.76–1.28), 0.9231.10 (0.83–1.45), 0.5031.13 (0.84–1.51), 0.433
Village0.84 (0.63–1.12), 0.2400.97 (0.71–1.32), 0.8361.04 (0.74–1.44), 0.828
Hamlet and isolated dwellings0.91 (0.59–1.42), 0.6881.18 (0.74–1.88), 0.4721.44 (0.88–2.34), 0.147
p-value for trend0.3000.6260.220
Geographical regions (ref = London)North East1.23 (0.74–2.06), 0.4221.77 (0.94–3.30), 0.0781.65 (0.85–3.19), 0.138
North West1.43 (0.92–2.23), 0.1111.67 (0.94–2.95), 0.0811.54 (0.86–2.79), 0.149
Yorkshire and The Humber1.68 (1.09–2.61), 0.0192.02 (0.94–2.95), 0.0131.97 (1.10–3.51), 0.21
East Midlands1.53 (0.98–2.39), 0.0191.83 (1.03–3.25), 0.0381.73 (0.95–3.13), 0.068
West Midlands1.60 (1.02–2.50), 0.0382.19 (1.24–3.86), 0.0072.12 (1.19–3.80), 0.011
East of England1.27 (0.83–1.95), 0.2711.57 (0.90–2.74), 0.1121.53 (0.87–2.72), 0.110
South East1.27 (0.83–1.98), 0.2711.52 (0.89–2.62), 0.1231.48 (0.85–2.56), 0.211
South West1.74 (1.12–2.70), 0.0122.35 (1.35–2.94.083), 0.0022.51 (1.43–4.43), 0.001
  1. Model A = geographical characteristics+age + gender
  2. Model B = Model A+ social network + individual-based loneliness from baseline wave
  3. Model C = Model B + health characteristics