The association between loneliness and medication use in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Loneliness is common in older adults, and it is associated with unhealthy behaviours, including substance use. We evaluated the association between loneliness and self-reported use of opioids and benzodiazepines in older adults. METHODS: We used data from the Canadian Community Health Survey's 'Healthy Aging' sub-survey and included adults 65 years or older who administered their own medications. We classified individuals as lonely if they scored 6 or more on the three -item University of California, Los Angeles's Loneliness Scale. We used multinomial logistic regression models, adjusting for demographics and self-reported comorbidities, to describe the association between loneliness and daily or occasional use of opioids, benzodiazepines and non-opioid analgesics. We also explored the association between loneliness and polypharmacy. RESULTS: Our cohort included 15,302 older adults, of whom 2,096 (13.7%) were classified as lonely. Daily use of opioids (4.1%) and benzodiazepines (1.7%) were less common than daily use of non-opioid analgesics (33.9%). Lonely older adults had higher daily use of opioids (odds ratio [OR] 1.61, 1.31-1.98) and benzodiazepines (OR 1.66, 1.21-2.28), but not non-opioid analgesics (OR 1.05, 0.92-1.19). Loneliness was not associated with occasional use of opioids, benzodiazepines or non-opioid analgesics in older adults, but was associated with polypharmacy (OR 1.27, 1.06-1.52). CONCLUSIONS: Loneliness in older adults is associated with increased daily use of opioids and benzodiazepines. Further research should evaluate patient- and physician-level factors that mediate this association, and develop strategies to mitigate loneliness and its attendant adverse outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".