Cited by 94Health disparities and outcomesAging, Health, and DisabilityAging and Gerontology Research

The discrepancy between social isolation and loneliness as a clinically meaningful metric: findings from the Irish and English longitudinal studies of ageing (TILDA and ELSA)

Open access
McHugh, JE, Kenny, RA, Lawlor, BA, Steptoe, A, Kee, F·2017·International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective: Scant evidence is available on the discordance between loneliness and social isolation among older adults. We aimed to investigate this discordance and any health implications that it may have. Method: Using nationally representative datasets from ageing cohorts in Ireland (TILDA) and England (ELSA), we created a metric of discordance between loneliness and social isolation, to which we refer as Social Asymmetry . This metric was the categorised difference between standardised scores on a scale of loneliness and a scale of social isolation, giving categories of: Concordantly Lonely and Isolated, Discordant: Robust to Loneliness, or Discordant: Susceptible to Loneliness. We used regression and multilevel modelling to identify potential relationships between Social Asymmetry and cognitive outcomes. Results: Social Asymmetry predicted cognitive outcomes cross‐sectionally and at a two‐year follow‐up, such that Discordant: Robust to Loneliness individuals were superior performers, but we failed to find evidence for Social Asymmetry as a predictor of cognitive trajectory over time. Conclusions: We present a new metric and preliminary evidence of a relationship with clinical outcomes. Further research validating this metric in different populations, and evaluating its relationship with other outcomes, is warranted. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/gps.4509

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McHugh, J., Kenny, R., Lawlor, B., Steptoe, A., & Kee, F.
Affiliations
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
  • Institute of Neuroscience Trinity College Dublin 2 Ireland
  • Trinity College Dublin (IE)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
McHugh, JE
Venue
International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-06
Volume
32
Issue
6
Pages
664-674
ISSN
  • 0885-6230 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1166
OpenAlex
W2417610451
Cited by
94
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4
FWCI
6.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • NORMA (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Atlantic Philanthropies
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Aging, Health, and Disability
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
Keywords
loneliness, social isolation, social asymmetry, older adults, cognitive function, cognitive decline, aging cohort, TILDA, English Longitudinal Study of Ageing
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Cognition, Cross-Sectional Studies, England, Female, Humans, Ireland, Loneliness, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Regression Analysis, Social Isolation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review