MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3108204183 · doi:10.1101/2020.11.23.20237289

Loneliness among older adults in the community during COVID-19

2020· preprint· en· W3108204183 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Rachel Savage, Wei Wu, Joyce Li, Andrea Lawson, Susan E. Bronskill, Stephanie Chamberlain, Jim Grieve, Andrea Gruneir, Christina Reppas‐Rindlisbacher, Nathan M. Stall, Paula A. Rochon

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of TorontoWomen's College Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsLonelinessOdds ratioOddsConfidence intervalDemographyGerontologyFeelingMedicineSocial isolationPsychologyLogistic regressionPsychiatrySocial psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective Physical distancing and stay-at-home measures implemented to slow transmission of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) may intensify feelings of loneliness in older adults, especially those living alone. Our aim was to characterize the extent of loneliness in a sample of older adults living in the community and assess characteristics associated with loneliness. Design Online cross-sectional survey between May 6 and May 19, 2020 Setting Ontario, Canada Participants Convenience sample of the members of a national retired educators’ organization. Primary outcome measures Self-reported loneliness, including differences between women and men. Results 4879 respondents (71.0% women; 67.4% 65-79 years) reported that in the preceding week, 43.1% felt lonely at least some of the time, including 8.3% that felt lonely always or often. Women had increased odds of loneliness compared to men, whether living alone (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) 1.52 [95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.13-2.04]) or with others (2.44 [95% CI 2.04-2.92]). Increasing age group decreased the odds of loneliness (aOR 0.69 [95% CI 0.59-0.81] 65-79 years and 0.50 [95% CI 0.39-0.65] 80+ years compared to <65 years). Living alone was associated with loneliness, with a greater association in men (aOR 4.26 [95% CI 3.15-5.76]) than women (aOR 2.65 [95% CI 2.26-3.11]). Other factors associated with loneliness included: fair or poor health (aOR 1.93 [95% CI 1.54-2.41]), being a caregiver (aOR 1.18 [95% CI 1.02-1.37]), receiving care (aOR 1.47 [95% CI 1.19-1.81]), high concern for the pandemic (aOR 1.55 [95% CI 1.31-1.84]), not experiencing positive effects of pandemic distancing measures (aOR 1.94 [95% CI 1.62-2.32]), and changes to daily routine (aOR 2.81 [95% CI 1.96-4.03]). Conclusions While many older adults reported feeling lonely during COVID-19, several characteristics – such as being female and living alone – increased the odds of loneliness. These characteristics may help identify priorities for targeting interventions to reduce loneliness. Strengths and limitations of this study This survey study leveraged a strong community-based partnership to obtain timely data from a large sample of older Canadians on the impacts of COVID-19. This study identified several characteristics that increased the odds of loneliness, which may help to identify priorities for targeted interventions to reduce loneliness. The data were based on a convenience sample of retired, educational staff, who are not fully representative of the Canadian population. The perspectives of vulnerable groups who may be at greater risk for loneliness (e.g. those with severe mental health illness, low income, no home internet access, etc.) are likely underrepresented in this sample.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→