MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411070677 · doi:10.1186/s12877-025-06088-0

Examining the longitudinal influence of loneliness on healthcare utilization: evidence from Taiwan’s national health insurance data

2025· article· en· W4411070677 on OpenAlexaff
Shiau‐Fang Chao, Hui‐Chuan Hsu, Bo-Yu Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Geriatrics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Taiwan University
KeywordsLonelinessMedicineHealth careRehabilitationNational health insuranceHealth insuranceLongitudinal dataGerontologyEnvironmental healthEconomic growthPsychiatryPhysical therapyDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study combines a nationally representative sample from Taiwan with four years of National Health Insurance (NHI) data to explore the distinctive impact of emotional and social loneliness on health service utilization, including outpatient visits for mental health, general outpatient visits, emergency room (ER) visits, and hospitalization. METHODS: Data were drawn from the 2015 Taiwan Longitudinal Survey on Aging (TLSA) and merged with participants' NHI records from 2015 to 2018. The analysis used logistic regression for binary outcomes and negative binomial regression for counts. RESULTS: Results show that higher emotional loneliness in 2015 was associated with increased outpatient mental health visits over time and more general outpatient visits within the same year. Conversely, higher social loneliness in 2015 reduced the likelihood of seeking ER care in 2015. CONCLUSIONS: By merging national data and distinguishing emotional from social loneliness, this study offers insights into their differential impacts on healthcare utilization among older adults in Taiwan. It emphasizes the importance of addressing loneliness to improve physical and mental well-being and optimize the effective utilization of healthcare resources.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.344
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.109 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GeriatricsSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207