CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 286Health disparities and outcomesAging and Gerontology ResearchCOVID-19 and Mental Health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

High prevalence and adverse health effects of loneliness in community-dwelling adults across the lifespan: role of wisdom as a protective factor

Open access
Lee, Ellen E., Depp, Colin, Palmer, Barton W., Glorioso, Danielle, Daly, Rebecca, Liu, Jinyuan, Tu, Xin M., Kim, Ho-Cheol, Tarr, Peri, Yamada, Yasunori, Jeste, Dilip V.·2019·International Psychogeriatrics
DOI 10.1017/s1041610218002120PMC PMC6581650
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study of loneliness across adult lifespan examined its associations with sociodemographics, mental health (positive and negative psychological states and traits), subjective cognitive complaints, and physical functioning. DESIGN: Analysis of cross-sectional data. PARTICIPANTS: 340 community-dwelling adults in San Diego, California, mean age 62 (SD = 18) years, range 27-101 years, who participated in three community-based studies. MEASUREMENTS: Loneliness measures included UCLA Loneliness Scale Version 3 (UCLA-3), 4-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Social Isolation Scale, and a single-item measure from the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CESD) scale. Other measures included the San Diego Wisdom Scale (SD-WISE) and Medical Outcomes Survey- Short form 36. RESULTS: Seventy-six percent of subjects had moderate-high levels of loneliness on UCLA-3, using standardized cut-points. Loneliness was correlated with worse mental health and inversely with positive psychological states/traits. Even moderate severity of loneliness was associated with worse mental and physical functioning. Loneliness severity and age had a complex relationship, with increased loneliness in the late-20s, mid-50s, and late-80s. There were no sex differences in loneliness prevalence, severity, and age relationships. The best-fit multiple regression model accounted for 45% of the variance in UCLA-3 scores, and three factors emerged with small-medium effect sizes: wisdom, living alone and mental well-being. CONCLUSIONS: The alarmingly high prevalence of loneliness and its association with worse health-related measures underscore major challenges for society. The non-linear age-loneliness severity relationship deserves further study. The strong negative association of wisdom with loneliness highlights the potentially critical role of wisdom as a target for psychosocial/behavioral interventions to reduce loneliness. Building a wiser society may help us develop a more connected, less lonely, and happier society.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1041610218002120

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 86 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. McGregor, 2017, This former surgeon general says there’s a ‘loneliness epidemic’ and work is partly to blame, Washington Post
  2. Samuelsson, 1998, Loneliness in relation to social, psychological and medical variables over a 13-year period: a study of the elderly in a Swedish rural district, Journal of Mental Health and Aging, 4, 361

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–286 of 286

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Lee, E. E., Depp, C., Palmer, B. W., Glorioso, D., Daly, R., Liu, J., Tu, X. M., Kim, H.-C., Tarr, P., Yamada, Y., & Jeste, D. V.
Affiliations
  • IBM (United States) (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • IBM Research - Tokyo (JP)
Corresponding author
Jeste, Dilip V.
ORCID
Venue
International Psychogeriatrics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-10
Volume
31
Issue
10
Pages
1447-1462
ISSN
1041-6102 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1017/s1041610218002120
PMC
PMC6581650
OpenAlex
W2905099661
Cited by
286
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 16
FWCI
26.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Psychogeriatrics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001442)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH094151, T32MH019934)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
Keywords
loneliness, wisdom, lifespan, community-dwelling adults, mental health, physical function, social isolation, living alone, sociodemographic factors, subjective cognitive complaints, protective factors
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, California, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Loneliness, Longevity, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Surveys and Questionnaires, Regression Analysis, Risk Factors, Prevalence, Independent Living, Protective Factors

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.

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