SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

Illness acceptance and community self-efficacy mediate the relationship between social isolation and loneliness among elderly people with Parkinson's Disease

· 2025-05-06

DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5645836/v1

Check source for accessPreprintOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Abstract Objective: In this study, we investigated the status quo of illness acceptance, community self-efficacy, and social isolation in elderly patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD). We explored the effects of illness acceptance and community self-efficacy on the relationship between social isolation and loneliness in patients with PD based on the self-regulation theory model. Methods: We selected elderly patients with PD from the outpatient department of two Grade iii-A hospitals in Guangdong Province through convenience sampling. We collected data using a general information questionnaire. We used the Lubben Social Network Scale, UCLA Loneliness Scale, Community’s Self-Efficacy Scale, and Acceptance of Illness Scale. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Pearson’s correlation coefficient, and bootstrap sampling to test the multiple mediation model. Results: We recruited 142 elderly patients with PD. Their mean age was 69.30 years (standard deviation = 5.34, range from 60 to 89 years). Approximately 55.6% (n = 79) were male. The mean scores for community self-efficacy, social network, and illness acceptance were 11.03 ± 6.21, 13.29 ± 5.4, and 23.56 ± 6.871, respectively. Loneliness was negatively associated with illness acceptance (r = -0.536, p Conclusion: Illness acceptance and community self-efficacy mediate the association between social isolation and loneliness. Interventions that help facilitate mutuality, illness acceptance, and community self-efficacy may help minimize the level of loneliness in patients with PD.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.