Bracknell Forest JSNA Joint Strategic Needs Assessment

JSNA home

Social isolation and loneliness

A JSNA deep dive for Bracknell Forest

How social isolation and loneliness affect health across the life course in Bracknell Forest, who is most at risk, and what would help people build connection.

At a glance

22.5% of Bracknell Forest residents feel lonely some of the time, up from 18.5% a year earlier Active Lives Survey, 2023/24

6.9% feel lonely often or all of the time — in line with the South East and England Active Lives Survey, 2023/24

27% of households in the borough are single or one person households Census 2021

£900 average additional healthcare cost per lonely person, per year Morrish et al. (2025)

Overview and analysis

Introduction

Social isolation and loneliness are increasingly recognised as social determinants for poor mental, wellbeing and physical health in light of growing evidence around how it contributes to poor health outcomes.¹ Its link to increased mortality or early death is comparable to other risk factors such as obesity and smoking.²

Conversely, social connection is widely seen as a protective health factor with studies suggesting it can increase likelihood of survival by 50%.² This highlights the importance of fostering an environment that reduces social isolation and loneliness and promotes social connection as a public health priority.³

Conversations around social isolation tend to focus on elderly due to their vulnerability and barriers that many older people face including possible mobility or frailty issues. As this JSNA will discuss, it is important to recognise that social isolation and loneliness can affect people across the life course.

This JSNA profile provides an overview of the national and local policy context, an epidemiological analysis, and a high-level summary of the local context and assets that can help promote social connection in Bracknell Forest.

What do we mean by social isolation and loneliness and why is it important?

There are three key concepts used in this JSNA chapter:

• Loneliness is a subjective emotional experience resulting from the discrepancy between an individual’s perceived and desired amount and/or quality of social relationships.
• Social isolation is the objective situation of being alone or having infrequent social contacts.
• Social connection describes how people relate to and interact with each other across three dimensions:
  • Structure (e.g. network, size, marital status, living alone)
  • Function (e.g. perceived and actual social support, social roles)
  • Quality (e.g. relationship satisfaction, strain)

Social isolation and loneliness are distinct from one another. Not everyone who is socially isolated experiences loneliness although it increases the risk of an individual feeling lonely. Similarly, someone who is surrounded by people and not considered socially isolated can also experience loneliness. Both concepts are considered a form of social ‘disconnection’.

It is also important to note that loneliness can be seen as a spectrum that range from transient, situational, chronic⁴ to help inform strategies. Everyone may feel lonely sometimes especially following a life event or trigger such as certain calendar events (e.g. birthdays, religious holidays) or going through a relationship break-up, becoming a parent, moving to a new area, bereavement, and many others.

Experiencing loneliness often motivates people to seek or build social connection as a response. Chronic or persistent loneliness happens when social connection is in deficit for a long period of time. One theory suggests this leads to an individual developing hypervigilance to threats including social situations.⁵ This makes social interactions more challenging which subsequently reduces the likelihood of engaging in and building positive social connections. This creates a self-reinforcing loneliness loop.⁶

The underlying reasons or mechanisms for how social isolation and loneliness contribute to poor health outcomes are complex and can involve many factors. The body of evidence relating to this has been acknowledged and summarised in multiple National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) consensus studies^{7 8} and by the WHO⁴.

Current understanding and evidence suggests bidirectional relationships with three main pathways:

Behaviour

Experiencing chronic loneliness and social isolation are linked to increased poor health behaviours such as smoking⁹, physical inactivity¹⁰, poor food choices, eating behaviour¹¹, and sleep¹². Engaging in these health-harming behaviours contribute to poor health outcomes and conditions such as cardiovascular disease and stroke¹³,¹⁴.

Social isolation is also found to have a negative impact on medical adherence (e.g. taking medication, following medical advice or lifestyle interventions) linked to the absence of social support.¹⁵

Psychology

Loneliness increases the likelihood of mental health conditions¹ such as depression¹⁶ and anxiety. Co-existing loneliness and depression can lead to early mortality in older adults.¹⁷

People who are experiencing loneliness also have a heightened risk of cognitive decline and developing dementia.¹⁸

Biological

The stress response associated with experiencing loneliness was found to be a contributor to an increase in biomarkers (e.g. stress hormones, cortisol) that lead to hypertension and inflammation.¹⁹

The diagram below summarises the direct and indirect, bidirectional or cyclical pathways by which social connection is associated with morbidity and mortality²⁰.

Figure 1 Direct and indirect, bidirectional or cyclical pathways by which social connection is linked with morbidity and mortality

Source: Holt-Lunstad (2024), World Psychiatry

Read a description of this diagram

The diagram sets out four linked boxes. Box A, risk factors, lists examples such as functional impairments, stigma, life transitions, role loss, economics and societal barriers.

Box B, social connections, is broken down into three dimensions: structure, for example network size and living status; function, for example social support and social roles; and quality, for example relationship satisfaction and strain.

Box C, mechanisms, holds the three pathways described above. Psychological covers stress, resilience and meaning. Biological covers inflammation and immune function. Behavioural covers physical activity, sleep, nutrition and medical adherence, and also risk-taking, violence and self-harm.

Box D, outcomes, is split between illness — physical such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes, mental such as depression and anxiety, and cognitive such as dementia — and mortality, covering all-cause, natural deaths from disease, and unnatural deaths from accidents, homicide and suicide.

Risk factors feed into social connections, which act on the mechanisms, which in turn act on illness and mortality. A separate line runs from social connections directly to outcomes, bypassing the mechanisms, and a dotted line across the top connects risk factors and outcomes. The arrows between the mechanisms and the outcomes point both ways, so the relationships are cyclical rather than one-directional.

Healthcare and societal costs

Recent findings from the UK-based study show that loneliness is associated with higher healthcare service use particularly for younger people and older people, with an average of £900 per lonely person.²¹

A study by New Economics Foundation found that loneliness costs UK employers £2.5 billion per year attributable to staff sickness, caring responsibilities, loss of productivity due to poor staff wellbeing, and voluntary staff turnover.²²

Evidence gap Due to the indirect influence of social isolation and loneliness on healthcare use and its contribution to chronic diseases, the true costs are likely to be higher than estimates.

National and local policy context

Jo Cox’s Commission on Loneliness in 2017 brought to light the scale and importance of loneliness in the UK. It highlighted that it can affect everyone and that some people are more affected than others.

In response, the UK government published a strategy for tackling loneliness²³ in 2018, which was followed by a number of initiatives and investments particularly following COVID-19. The strategy and the government’s work on loneliness are guided by the following overarching objectives:

1. Reducing stigma so people are enabled to talk about feeling lonely and reach out for help.
2. Social connections and loneliness are embedded across government policies and delivery by organisations, amplifying the impact of those who connect people.
3. Improve the evidence base around what works to tackle it and ensure that everyone is enabled to make informed decisions.

Building thriving communities in town, villages and neighbourhood centres is a key ambition for Bracknell Forest.²⁴

Who is experiencing loneliness and social isolation?

Campaign to End Loneliness carried out an analysis of ONS data on loneliness and found that the prevalence of chronic loneliness in Britain has increased following the Covid-19 pandemic from 6% in 2020 to 7.1% in 2023²⁵.

Based on responses to the Active Lives Survey, the proportion of the Bracknell Forest population reporting to feel lonely ‘often or all of the time’ decreased from 8.6% in 2022/23 to 6.9% in 2023/24 and is consistent with South East and England averages.

The proportion of the population reporting to feel lonely ‘some of the time’ has increased from 18.5% in 2022/23 to 22.5% in 2023/24. This is higher than the South East and England averages of around 18%.

Evidence gap There is limited data available from the survey to break this down further by demographics.

Figure 2 Line charts showing proportion of responses to the Active Lives Survey who say they are lonely some or all of the time in Bracknell Forest, South East and England

Source: Sport England Active Lives Survey

View the data as a table

period	Bracknell Forest	South East	England
2019/20	24.8	20.8	22.2
2020/21	25.4	23.2	25.0
2021/22	25.6	22.9	24.9
2022/23	27.1	23.9	25.3
2023/24	29.4	23.6	25.1

Fingertips data show that the percentage of adult social care users who have as much social contact as they would like fell in 2022/23 but has since recovered.

Figure 3 Percentage of adult social care users who have as much social contact as they would like (65+ years)

Source: OHID Public Health Profiles, Adult Social Care Survey. The survey was not run in 2020/21.

View the data as a table

period	Bracknell Forest	South East	England
2014/15	40.4	45.0	42.8
2015/16	43.3	43.1	43.7
2016/17	44.7	43.2	43.2
2017/18	46.0	44.5	44.0
2018/19	50.2	44.7	43.5
2019/20	42.4	42.9	43.4
2020/21	NA	NA	NA
2021/22	42.3	36.2	37.3
2022/23	25.2	42.4	41.5
2023/24	45.0	42.6	43.1
2024/25	48.1	44.2	43.1

Data from the Personal Social Services Survey of Adult Carers in England (SACE) shows that carers who report they have as much social contact as they would like is beginning to increase in the last survey.

Figure 4 Percentage of adult carers who have as much social contact as they would like (65+ years)

Source: Personal Social Services Survey of Adult Carers in England (SACE). The survey runs every two years.

View the data as a table

period	Bracknell Forest	South East	England
2016/17	37.8	33.2	35.5
2018/19	32.5	31.4	32.5
2021/22	28.3	27.9	28.0
2023/24	33.3	25.9	30.0

Dashboard — link to come A Power BI dashboard covering social isolation and loneliness will be published alongside this chapter. The link will be added here once it is live.

Who is most affected or at-risk of loneliness and social isolation?

Young people

• National evidence suggests that young people aged 16 to 24 and adults under 50 were more likely to report feeling lonely often or always²⁶.
• Children in care: findings from a recent poll conducted by Action for Children shows that nine in ten of care experienced adults had ever felt lonely and/or isolated in their care placements and nearly one in five reported that they had felt like this all the time.²⁷
• Around 10.8% of Bracknell Forest residents are young people aged 15 to 24.
• For 2024/25 there were 124 Children Looked After in BF (42 per 10,000). This is defined as “falls into one of the following: is provided with accommodation, for a continuous period of more than 24 hours; is subject to a care order; and is subject to a placement order”

People who live alone and single, separated or widowed

• Based on the Census 2021 data, 27% of households in Bracknell Forest are single or one person households. 10.3% of households had a 66 year old and over living alone.
• Around 52% of adults were single, divorced, separated, or widowed.

People from lower socioeconomic backgrounds

• There are no areas in Bracknell Forest in the 20% most deprived nationally however 9 areas are more deprived than the national median, with four in decile 5 and five in decile 4.

Carers

• Local intelligence from the Carers Strategy highlights that carers felt lonely and isolated because of their caring responsibility or as a result of limited accessible or disabled-friendly activities in the borough.
• Responses to the Personal Social Services Survey of Adult Carers²⁸ in England in 2023/24 suggests that only 32% of adult carers reported to have had as much social contact as they would have liked.
• Based on Census 2021 data, around 7% of Bracknell Forest residents are unpaid carers and notably 3% of carers are young people aged 5 to 17.

People with cognitive decline

• A recent study found that one in three people with dementia experience loneliness.²⁹
• In January 2025, there were an estimated 1,332 people (65+) living with dementia in Bracknell Forest and 844 with a diagnosis.³⁰

People with frailty

• Loneliness is both a risk factor and a consequence of frailty. A systematic review found that worse frailty status was significantly associated with a higher degree of loneliness.³¹
• Applying age specific prevalence rates from a large RCGP cohort study³² to BF’s population structure, just under a fifth of people aged 50+ are expected to have some form of frailty (19.89%). This ranges from 9.08% in the 50-64 group, up to 40.76% in the 85+ group. The higher prevalence in the higher age group will disproportionately impact females due to their higher life expectancy.

People with severe mental illness

• Based on the QOF mental health register, 0.70% of Bracknell Forest population or 1 in 143 people have severe mental illness. This is lower than the South East average of 0.93% (1 in 107) and the England average of 1.02% (1 in 98).³³

Local drivers and barriers

Evidence suggests that fostering social connections can make people healthier and happier. This section summarises the feedback from stakeholders around the drivers and barriers to building social connections in Bracknell Forest.

Pregnancy, early years and parents

In an engagement carried out by Thriving Communities, families with small children said they would value a local network of parents where they can share knowledge, resources and experiences. Many felt that a key barrier is their lack of awareness of upcoming events or opportunities for social connection locally.

For many parents, time-constraints and costs are the biggest barriers for engaging in activities. They also highlighted that families without access to private transportation or cars might struggle with travel due to limited and affordability of public transportation.

Young people

Feedback from young people and stakeholders were often centred around the limited local activities and opportunities for them to socialise or a safe space for them to go. While there are valuable spaces such as The Wayz youth club, young people may not always have the confidence to attend the sessions or may not always find it accessible. This could particularly be the case for young people who are experiencing other social inequalities such as young people who have physical disabilities, those who come from migrant backgrounds, or from low-income families. Young people also highlighted that existing youth provision is not promoted widely enough.

Stepping Stones Recovery College supports young people aged 16 to 25 who are experiencing challenges with their mental health and emotional wellbeing. In a focus group that they held as part of co-creating the programme, young people highlighted that there needs to be better communication about what is available for specific needs or struggles. As an example, this could be worded as “For help with loneliness, why not check out…?”, “Feeling low, try reaching out to…”

This is supported by findings from the Carers’ Strategy that young carers are often not aware of services that can support them.

Young people who are not engaged in school due to persistent absence, suspension or exclusion are also at risk of social isolation. Youthline services reported that a large proportion of the young people that they see have concerns around social relationships.

Adults

Frontline professionals highlighted poor community infrastructure particularly in certain areas of Bracknell Forest (e.g. Bracknell Town Centre).

Those working with vulnerable adults (e.g. who live in poverty or are experiencing homelessness) raised that the biggest barrier they face is the cost of transportation followed by ‘feelings of belonging’. They may feel intimidated or feel the existing drop-ins do not meet their needs and therefore not engage. They also argued that those who are experiencing homelessness are less likely to have access to digital tools and information which further exacerbates their exclusion.

Bracknell Forest Carers’ Strategy highlighted that they would value being able to socialise with friends and family and having a strong support network are two of the top themes that came out as being most important for their wellbeing.

Older adults

The biggest concern that stakeholders highlighted older people face is the lack of accessible community transportation. Information and services (e.g. booking transport) offered digitally can also present accessibility issues for those who are not able to use technology.

Overall, while Bracknell Forest benefits from strong community assets and relatively average levels of chronic loneliness, there are clear signals of emerging need, particularly among specific population groups. Barriers relating to awareness, access and inclusion suggest that existing provision is not consistently reaching those most at risk.

Local services/assets

Bracknell Forest recently launched Stronger Together, Communities Strategy 2026 to 2036 to build strong, connected and cohesive communities. Currently, local services and assets include:

• Thriving Communities provide extensive outreach in specific areas and communities in Bracknell Forest
• The Happiness Hub is a collaboration of services offering mental health and wellbeing advice and support to those living in and around Bracknell Forest aged 18 years and over
• Mental Health Recovery Network (MHRN) works with partners in the mental health and wider health and care systems. The aim is to support individuals living with a range of mental health conditions to remain socially included by better understanding their mental health and supporting them in preventing relapses.
• Community-run cafes and services across Bracknell Forest
• Social prescribing
• Green spaces available to residents across Bracknell Forest
• Services for people with dementia including dementia coffee mornings (incl. their carers)
• Young Carers groups including The Wayz and art programme
• Various Carers support group incl. Signal4carers, CMHT support group
• The digital Community Map, hosted on Bracknell Forest Council’s Public Health Portal, is a repository of information about activities and groups available locally which support health and wellbeing, and social connections.
• There are libraries which serve communities across the borough and these provide an opportunity to utilise these as spaces for social connection and signposting to other services locally.

Areas for improvement

• Strengthen proactive identification of loneliness through primary care and social care contacts, community and voluntary sector touchpoints, and targeted outreach to at-risk groups
• Improve awareness of available services and opportunities for social connection by improving coordination of information about local activities and support, clearer, more targeted messaging (e.g. “if you are feeling lonely, here is what is available”), accessible communication channels, including for those who are digitally excluded
• Addressing practical barriers relating to transport and costs will be critical to ensuring that existing assets are equitably accessible
• Strengthening inclusive and targeted provision to ensure diverse groups feel welcome and is accessible to them. This could include co-designing services with communities to improve relevance and uptake
• Enhancing community infrastructure and place-based approaches that build on local assets
• Strengthening system coordination and the role of the voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) sector including better integration of VCSE provision into wider pathways (e.g. social prescribing) and develop a joined-up system response to loneliness
• Strengthening the local evidence base through better use of service data, surveys and community insight would support more targeted and effective action.

References

1. Nesta (2024) Investigating the impact of social isolation and loneliness. Available at: online

2. Holt-Lunstad (2010) Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review. Available at: online

3. World Health Organization (2025) From loneliness to social connection: Charting a path to healthier societies

4. Zeas-Sigüenza, A. et al. (2025) Beyond clinical risk: tackling loneliness through a population health lens, Frontiers in Psychology, 16:1609060, Available at: online (Accessed 19/02/2026)

5. Cacioppo, John T. et al. (2009) Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Volume 13, Issue 10, 447 - 454

6. Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT. Loneliness matters: a theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Ann Behav Med. 2010 Oct;40(2):218-27.

7. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2020). Social isolation and loneliness in older adults: opportunities for the health care system. Washington: National Academies Press

8. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2021). Enhancing community resilience through social capital and connectedness: stronger together! Washington: National Academies Press

9. Dyal SR, Valente TW. (2015) A Systematic Review of Loneliness and Smoking: Small Effects, Big Implications. Subst Use Misuse. 2015;50(13):1697-716

10. Delerue Matos, A., Barbosa, F., Cunha, C. et al. (2021) Social isolation, physical inactivity and inadequate diet among European middle-aged and older adults. BMC Public Health 21, 924

11. Hanna K. et al (2023) The association between loneliness or social isolation and food and eating behaviours: A scoping review, Appetite, 191. Available at: online (Accessed 21/02/2026)

12. Kent de Grey RG, Uchino BN, Trettevik R et al. Social support and sleep: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol 2018;37:787-98

13. Valtorta, N.K., Kanaan, M., Gilbody, S. and Hanratty, B., (2018). Loneliness, social isolation and risk of cardiovascular disease in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 25(13), pp.1387-1396.

14. Valtorta, N.K., Kanaan, M., Gilbody, S., Ronzi, S. and Hanratty, B., (2016). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for coronary heart disease and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observational studies. Heart, 102(13), pp.1009-1016.

15. DiMatteo MR. (2004) Social support and patient adherence to medical treatment: a meta-analysis. Health Psychology. Mar;23(2):207

16. Cacioppo JT, Hawkley LC, Thisted RA (2010): Perceived social isolation makes me sad: 5-year cross-lagged analyses of loneliness and depressive symptomatology in the Chicago Health, Aging, and Social Relations Study. Psychol Aging; 25:453-463. Available at: online (Accessed 21/02/2026)

17. Holwerda TJ, van Tilburg TG, Deeg DJH, et al. (2016) Impact of loneliness and depression on mortality: Results from the Longitudinal Ageing Study Amsterdam. The British Journal of Psychiatry 209(2):127-134

18. Angelina R Sutin, Yannick Stephan, Martina Luchetti, Antonio Terracciano (2020) Loneliness and Risk of Dementia, The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, Volume 75, Issue 7, Pages 1414-1422

19. Smith KJ, Gavey S, Riddell NE, Kontari P, Victor C. (2020) The association between loneliness, social isolation and inflammation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. May;112:519-541

20. Holt-Lunstad J. (2024) Social connection as a critical factor for mental and physical health: evidence, trends, challenges, and future implications. World Psychiatry. 23(3):312-332

21. Morrish N, Spencer A, Medina-Lara A. (2025) How loneliness relates to health, wellbeing, quality of life, and healthcare resource utilisation and costs across multiple age groups in the UK. PLoS One. Sep 3;20(9)

22. New Economics Foundation (2017) Cost of loneliness. Available at: online (Accessed 27/02/2026)

23. A connected society: A strategy for tackling loneliness – laying the foundations for change. Available at: online (Accessed 19/02/2026)

24. Bracknell Forest Council Plan 2023 to 2027. Available at: online

25. Campaign to End Loneliness (2023) The State of Loneliness 2023: ONS data on loneliness in Britain June 2023

26. Community Life Survey 2024/25: Loneliness and support networks. Available at: online

27. Action for Children (2024) A place to call home: Understanding placement quality in the children’s social care system in England. Available at: online

28. Personal Social Services Survey of Adult Carers in England, 2023-24. Available at: online

29. Victor, C et al (2020) Prevalence and determinants of loneliness in people living with dementia: Findings from the IDEAL programme. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2020; 35: 851-858.

30. Primary Care Dementia Data, January 2025. Available at: online

31. Kojime G et al (2022) Associations between loneliness and physical frailty in community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Research Reviews 2022 Volume 8. Available at: online

32. Fogg, C. et al. (2022). The dynamics of frailty development and progression in older adults in primary care in England (2006-2017): a retrospective cohort profile. BMC Geriatrics, 22.

33. NHS Digital (2024) QOF Mental health register