Hearing Loss, Loneliness, and Social Isolation: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Social isolation and loneliness are associated with increased mortality and higher health care spending in older adults. Hearing loss is a common condition in older adults and impairs communication and social interactions. The objective of this review is to summarize the current state of the literature exploring the association between hearing loss and social isolation and/or loneliness. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library. REVIEW METHODS: Articles were screened for inclusion by 2 independent reviewers, with a third reviewer for adjudication. English-language studies of older adults with hearing loss that used a validated measure of social isolation or loneliness were included. A modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the studies included in the review. RESULTS: Of the 2495 identified studies, 14 were included in the review. Most of the studies (12/14) were cross-sectional. Despite the heterogeneity of assessment methods for hearing status (self-report or objective audiometry), loneliness, and social isolation, most multivariable-adjusted studies found that hearing loss was associated with higher risk of loneliness and social isolation. Several studies found an effect modification of gender such that among women, hearing loss was more strongly associated with loneliness and social isolation than among men. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings that hearing loss is associated with loneliness and social isolation have important implications for the cognitive and psychosocial health of older adults. Future studies should investigate whether treating hearing loss can decrease loneliness and social isolation in older adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".