The prevalence and experience of loneliness in persons with cognitive impairment on an Inpatient Geriatric Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Older adults who experience loneliness are at a heightened risk for mortality. There are two distinct types of loneliness: social, in which social interactions and networks are reduced, as can result from social isolation and lack of social integration; and emotional, in which a meaningful attachment bond with another is absent. We examined the prevalence and experience of loneliness in cognitively impaired older adults receiving treatment in a mental healthcare facility. Method Fourteen participants with mild cognitive impairment or mild/moderate dementia (mean MoCA 17, range 12‐22; mean age 76, range 65‐92) completed a demographic survey, DeJong Gierveld 6‐Item Loneliness Scale, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and a semi‐structured interview. Basic thematic analysis was used to extract major themes from the interview data. Differences in the prevalence of loneliness between low (MOCA 18 or greater) and high (MOCA 17 or less) cognitive impairment groups and correlations between cognitive impairment and loneliness were examined. Result Participants experienced moderate or severe loneliness (86%), emotional (79%) and social (57%) loneliness. Themes emerging from interviews included limited social networks, lack of connection or social engagement, loss of role, need for meaningful activities, missing families, dependency, and stigma. No significant differences were found in loneliness between low vs. high cognitive impairment groups. Correlational analysis suggested a negative association between social loneliness and cognitive impairment, with individuals with lower cognitive impairment scoring higher on social loneliness (r = , p = ). Conclusion Loneliness is prevalent and multifactorial in individuals with cognitive impairment receiving care in a mental health care facility.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".