Jitka Pikhartova

Dr. Jitka Pikhartova

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

18Years (2009-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
25 March 2015 in Aging & Mental Health
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
JPJitka Pikhartova
Jitka Pikhartova
ABAnn Bowling
Ann Bowling
CVChristina R Victor
Christina R Victor
Objectives: There are many stereotypes about ageing and later life. We looked at the association between expectations and stereotyping of loneliness in old age and actual self-reported loneliness status 8 years later in English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). Method: Data from 4465 ELSA core members aged over 50 who responded to Waves 2 (2004) did not report loneliness in Wave 2, and responded to loneliness questions at least once between Waves 3 and 6 (2006–2012) were used in multivariable repeated measures logit regression analysis to estimate relationship between perceived stereotypes and expectation of loneliness in older age and actual loneliness reported within 8 years of follow-up. Results: Twenty-four per cent of respondents from the analytical sample agreed at Wave 2 that old age is time of loneliness and 33% expected to be lonely in old age. Loneliness was reported by 11.5% of respondents at Waves 3–6. Both stereotypes and expectation were significantly associated with later reported loneliness (OR 2.65 (95% CI 2.05–3.42) for stereotypes and 2.98 (95% CI 2.33–3.75) for expectations in age-sex adjusted analysis). Both variables significantly predicted future loneliness even when socio-demographic circumstances were taken into account and both variables were mutually adjusted although the effect was reduced (OR's 1.53 (95% CI 1.16–2.01) for stereotypes and 2.38 (95% CI 1.84–3.07) for expectations). Conclusions: Stereotypes and expectations related to loneliness in the old age were significantly associated with reported loneliness 8 years later. Interventions aimed at changing age-related stereotypes in population may have more impact on reducing loneliness than individually based services.

27 May 2020 in BMC Public Health
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CVChristina R Victor
Christina R Victor
JPJitka Pikhartova
Jitka Pikhartova
Background: Loneliness in later life is largely presented as a problem of the individual focusing upon antecedents such as demographic or health factors. Research examining the role of the broader living environments is much rarer. We examined the relationship between loneliness and three dimensions of the lived environment: geographical region, deprivation, and area classification (urban or rural). Methods: Our sample consisted of 4663 core members (44% males) aged 50+ (wave 7 mean age 72.8, S.D. = 7.1) present both in waves 3 (2006) and 7 (2014) of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). Loneliness was measured using two approaches, individual and area-based, and both waves included these questions. Individual-based (self-reported) loneliness was assessed using the three item University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) scale (ranging from 3 = not lonely to 9 = lonely) with a score of 6+ defining loneliness. We also used a novel question which asked participants to evaluate how often they felt lonely in their area of residence (area-based; ranging from 1 = often to 7 = never, using cut off 4+ to define loneliness). The lived environment was classified in three different ways: the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), Government Office Regions (GOR), and area classification (urban or rural). Covariates with established relationship with loneliness including demographic factors, social engagement and health, were included in the analyses. Results: In wave 7, the prevalence of individual-based loneliness was 18% and area-based was 25%. There was limited congruence between measures: 68% participants reported no individual- or area-based loneliness and 9% reported loneliness for both measures. After adjusting for individual co-variates only one significant relationship was observed between loneliness and area -based characteristics. A significant association was observed between area-based loneliness and deprivation score, with higher levels of loneliness in more deprived areas (OR = 1.4 for highest quintile of deprivation). Conclusions: Our results indicate that loneliness in older adults is higher in the most deprived areas independent of individual-level factors. In order to develop appropriate interventions further research is required to investigate how area-level factors combine with individual-level loneliness vulnerability measures to generate increased levels of loneliness in deprived areas.

20 September 2014 in BMC Geriatrics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JPJitka Pikhartova
Jitka Pikhartova
ABAnn Bowling
Ann Bowling
CVChristina R Victor
Christina R Victor
Pet ownership is thought to make a positive contribution to health, health behaviours and the general well-being of older people. More specifically pet ownership is often proposed as a solution to the problem of loneliness in later life and specific ‘pet based’ interventions have been developed to combat loneliness. However the evidence to support this relationship is slim and it is assumed that pet ownership is a protection against loneliness rather than a response to loneliness. The aim of this paper is to examine the association between pet ownership and loneliness by exploring if pet ownership is a response to, or protection against, loneliness using Waves 0–5 from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). Using data from 5,210 men and women in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, cross-sectional and longitudinal regression analysis was used to assess the bi-directional relationship between loneliness and pet ownership among adults aged 50 + . In 2001 (wave 0) 41% of participants were pet owners compared with 30% in 2010 (Wave 5). The association between pet ownership and loneliness is stronger in women than men, and in both directions (i.e. pet ownership predicting loneliness and loneliness predicting pet ownership) and of the similar magnitude (OR 1.2-1.4). Age, social relationships, demographic factors and health behaviour variables have only a minimal influence upon the association between loneliness and pet ownership. The results of our longitudinal analysis showed that women who reported being lonely always in Waves 0 to 5 were more likely to have a pet in Wave 5. Reported loneliness is dependent on socio-demographic characteristics such as gender, household income, household living arrangements and health status. Taking those factors into account, owning a pet significantly influences later reporting of loneliness in women in our longitudinal analysis. In the reverse direction, reported loneliness influences pet ownership in later waves. In both directions, the relatively strong gender interaction suggests the association is limited to women with effects for men minimal or non-existent.

2 December 2016 in BMC Psychology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ABAnn Bowling
Ann Bowling
JPJitka Pikhartova
Jitka Pikhartova
BDBrian Dodgeon
Brian Dodgeon
Some studies have indicated that social engagement is associated with better cognitive outcomes. This study aimed to investigate associations between life-course social engagement (civic participation) and cognitive status at age 50, adjusting for social networks and support, behavioural, health, social and socio-economic characteristics. The vehicle for the study was the National Child Development Study (1958 Birth Cohort Study), which is a general population sample in England, Scotland and Wales (9119: 4497 men and 4622 women) participating in nationally representative, prospective birth cohort surveys. The primary outcome variable was cognitive status at age 50, measured by memory test (immediate and delayed word recall test) and executive functioning test (word fluency and letter cancelation tests). The influence of hypothesised predictor variables was analysed using linear multiple regression analysis. Cognitive ability at age 11 (β = 0.19;95% CI = 0.17 to 0.21), participation in civic activities at ages 33 (0.12; 0.02 to 0.22) and 50 (0.13; 0.07 to 0.20), frequent engagement in physical activity (sport) (β from 0.15 to 0.18), achieving higher level qualifications (β from 0.23 to 1.08), and female gender (β = 0.49;95% CI = 0.38 to 0.60) were positively, significantly and independently associated with cognitive status at age 50. Having low socio-economic status at ages 11 (β from -0.22 to -0.27) and 42 (β from -0.28 to -0.38), and manifesting worse mental well-being at age 42 (β = -0.18; 95% CI = -0.33 to -0.02) were inversely associated with cognitive status at age 50. The proportion of explained variance in the multiple regression model (18%), while modest, is impressive given the multi-faceted causal nature of cognitive status. The results indicate that modest associations between adult social engagement and cognitive function at age 50 persist after adjusting for covariates which included health, socio-economic status and gender, supporting theories of neuroplasticity. In addition to the continuing emphasis on physical activity, the encouragement of civic participation, at least as early as mid-life, should be a targeted policy to potentially promote and protect cognitive function in later mid-life.

26 May 2014 in BMC Public Health
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JPJitka Pikhartova
Jitka Pikhartova
DBDavid Blane
David Blane
GNGopalakrishnan Netuveli
Gopalakrishnan Netuveli
Socioeconomic circumstances in childhood and early adulthood may influence the later onset of chronic disease, although such research is limited for type 2 diabetes and its risk factors at the different stages of life. The main aim of the present study is to examine the role of childhood social position and later inflammatory markers and health behaviours in developing type 2 diabetes at older ages using a pathway analytic approach.

27 April 2009 in International Journal of Public Health
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
JPJitka Pikhartova
Jitka Pikhartova
TCTarani Chandola
Tarani Chandola
RKRuzena Kubinova
Ruzena Kubinova
MBMartin Bobak
Martin Bobak
ANAmanda Nicholson
Amanda Nicholson
HPHynek Pikhart
Hynek Pikhart