MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6959903355 · doi:10.11575/prism/dspace/41373

Increased prevalence of loneliness and associated risk factors during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA)

2023· other· en· W6959903355 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Calgary · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Pathogens and Resistance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessLongitudinal studyLogistic regressionPandemicSocial isolationPublic healthLongitudinal dataHealth and Retirement Study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Older adults have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 and related preventative measures undertaken during the pandemic. Given clear evidence of the relationship between loneliness and health outcomes, it is imperative to better understand if, and how, loneliness has changed for older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic, and whom it has impacted most. Method We used “pre-pandemic” data collected between 2015–2018 (n = 44,817) and “during pandemic” data collected between Sept 29-Dec 29, 2020 (n = 24,114) from community-living older adults participating in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging. Loneliness was measured using the 3-item UCLA Loneliness Scale. Weighted generalized estimating equations estimated the prevalence of loneliness pre-pandemic and during the pandemic. Lagged logistic regression models examined individual-level factors associated with loneliness during the pandemic. Results We found the adjusted prevalence of loneliness increased to 50.5% (95% CI: 48.0%-53.1%) during the pandemic compared to 30.75% (95% CI: 28.72%-32.85%) pre-pandemic. Loneliness increased more for women (22.3% vs. 17.0%), those in urban areas (20.8% vs. 14.6%), and less for those 75 years and older (16.1% vs. 19.8% or more in all other age groups). Loneliness during the pandemic was strongly associated with pre-pandemic loneliness (aOR 4.87; 95% CI 4.49–5.28) and individual level sociodemographic factors [age < 55 vs. 75 + (aOR 1.41; CI 1.23–1.63), women (aOR 1.34; CI 1.25–1.43), and no post-secondary education vs. post-secondary education (aOR 0.73; CI 0.61–0.86)], living conditions [living alone (aOR 1.39; CI 1.27–1.52) and urban living (aOR 1.18; CI 1.07–1.30)], health status [depression (aOR 2.08; CI 1.88–2.30) and having two, or ≥ three chronic conditions (aOR 1.16; CI 1.03–1.31 and aOR 1.34; CI 1.20–1.50)], health behaviours [regular drinker vs. non-drinker (aOR 1.15; CI 1.04–1.28)], and pandemic-related factors [essential worker (aOR 0.77; CI 0.69–0.87), and spending less time alone than usual on weekdays (aOR 1.32; CI 1.19–1.46) and weekends (aOR 1.27; CI 1.14–1.41) compared to spending the same amount of time alone]. Conclusions As has been noted for various other outcomes, the pandemic did not impact all subgroups of the population in the same way with respect to loneliness. Our results suggest that public health measures aimed at reducing loneliness during a pandemic should incorporate multifactor interventions fostering positive health behaviours and consider targeting those at high risk for loneliness.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.183 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of CalgarySame topicPlant Pathogens and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207