CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 584COVID-19 and Mental HealthHealth disparities and outcomesCOVID-19 epidemiological studies

Loneliness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Open access
Ernst, Mareike, Niederer, Daniel, Werner, Antonia M., Czaja, Sara J., Mikton, Christopher, Ong, Anthony D., Rosen, Tony, Brähler, Elmar +1 more·2022·American Psychologist
DOI 10.1037/amp0001005PMC PMC9768682

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic and measures aimed at its mitigation, such as physical distancing, have been discussed as risk factors for loneliness, which increases the risk of premature mortality and mental and physical health conditions. To ascertain whether loneliness has increased since the start of the pandemic, this study aimed to narratively and statistically synthesize relevant high-quality primary studies. This systematic review with meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (ID CRD42021246771). Searched databases were PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library/Central Register of Controlled Trials/EMBASE/CINAHL, Web of Science, the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 database, supplemented by Google Scholar and citation searching (cutoff date of the systematic search December 5, 2021). Summary data from prospective research including loneliness assessments before and during the pandemic were extracted. Of 6,850 retrieved records, 34 studies (23 longitudinal, 9 pseudolongitudinal, 2 reporting both designs) on 215,026 participants were included. Risk of bias (RoB) was estimated using the risk of bias in non-randomised studies-of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Standardized mean differences (SMD, Hedges' g) for continuous loneliness values and logOR for loneliness prevalence rates were calculated as pooled effect size estimators in random-effects meta-analyses. Pooling studies with longitudinal designs only (overall N = 45,734), loneliness scores (19 studies, SMD = 0.27 [95% confidence interval = 0.14-0.40], Z = 4.02, p < .001, I 2 = 98%) and prevalence rates (8 studies, logOR = 0.33 [0.04-0.62], Z = 2.25, p = .02, I 2 = 96%) increased relative to prepandemic times with small effect sizes. Results were robust with respect to studies' overall RoB, pseudolongitudinal designs, timing of prepandemic assessments, and clinical populations. The heterogeneity of effects indicates a need to further investigate risk and protective factors as the pandemic progresses to inform targeted interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/amp0001005

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

4 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

0 of 39 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingcitation

    Women were more likely than men to report increases in loneliness.

    “Women were more likely to report increases in loneliness than men (Entringer & Gosling, 2021; Entringer et al., 2020; Niedzwiedz et al., 2021; Philpot et al., 2021; Wong et al., 2020)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Entringer & Gosling, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Entringer et al., 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Niedzwiedz et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingcitation

    Living alone and/or being single during the pandemic was associated with higher risk of increased loneliness.

    “Those who lived alone (Bartrés-Faz et al., 2021; Heidinger & Richter, 2020; Huxhold & Tesch-Römer, 2021; McGrath et al., 2021; Okely et al., 2020; Stolz et al., 2021; Wong et al., 2020) and/or were single during the pandemic (Huxhold & Tesch-Römer, 2021; Stone, 2020) were particularly at risk for higher levels of loneliness compared to pre-pandemic assessments”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bartrés-Faz et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Heidinger & Richter, 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Huxhold & Tesch-Römer, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingown data

    The meta-analysis's overall pooled effect size was small.

    “Furthermore, the overall pooled effect in this study was small and the effect sizes reported by the individual studies were heterogeneous.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Less than one third of the variance observed was explained by the meta-regression.

    “However, the fact that the meta-regression accounted for less than a third of observed variance suggests that other factors may influence the different trajectories of loneliness in the pandemic context.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The main findings were robust across sensitivity analyses including studies with serious risk of bias, clinical populations, pseudo-longitudinal designs, and overlapping pre-pandemic assessments.

    “The main findings of the longitudinal studies were robust against results from 14 studies with serious RoB (SMD = 0.41 [95% CI: 0.11–0.71])”
    • Also stated in: § Sensitivity analyses · plain
      “two studies with clinical populations (SMD = 0.26 [95% CI: 0.12–0.40]), six studies with pseudo-longitudinal designs (SMD = 0.30 [95% CI: 0.17–0.42]), and two studies whose pre-pandemic assessment period overlapped with the pre-specified date cut-offs (SMD = 0.27 [95% CI: 0.14–0.39])”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 23
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 18

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    34 studies on 215,026 participants were included.

    “In total, 34 articles met the eligibility criteria”
    • Also stated in: § Study Characteristics of Included Studies · plain
      “Table 1 provides a summary of the main information extracted from the 34 eligible articles, totaling 215,026 participants”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Of studies reporting pre- and during-pandemic comparisons, 18 reported an overall increase, 8 reported no change, and 1 reported a decrease.

    “Of the studies reporting comparisons of loneliness pre- and during-pandemic, only one reported an overall decrease, 18 reported an overall increase, and eight reported no change”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Increases in loneliness were found in both younger and older participant groups.

    “Increases in loneliness were found both in younger participant groups, such as students (Beutel et al., 2021; Elmer et al., 2020; Entringer & Gosling, 2021; Rogers et al., 2021) and in older participant groups, such as community cohorts of senior citizens (Heidinger & Richter, 2020; Krendl & Perry, 2021; Wong et al., 2020)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Studies showing decreasing loneliness had relied on pre-pandemic assessments shortly before physical distancing, while those with comparison data from months or years before observed increased loneliness.

    “Studies showing decreasing loneliness had overwhelmingly relied on pre-pandemic assessments conducted shortly before the implementation of physical distancing, while those with comparison data from months or years before the pandemic had observed increased loneliness during the pandemic”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Age, clinical population status, and overall risk of bias were identified by the meta-regression as predictors of loneliness increases.

    “The meta-regression identified age, clinical populations, and studies’ overall RoB as predictors of increases in loneliness, but only overall RoB had statistically significant effects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Some original studies did not report on previously identified vulnerable groups, such as individuals living alone, so these groups could not be tested as predictors.

    “As some original studies failed to report on previously identified vulnerable groups (e.g., individuals living alone), these could not be tested as predictors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Most studies had a serious overall risk of bias; ten studies had moderate risk of bias.

    “Most studies had a serious overall RoB. For ten studies (seven of which were included in the main analyses), RoB was rated as moderate”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was a substantial number of studies with high risk of bias due to confounding, while selective reporting bias was rare.

    “In summary, there was a substantial number of studies with high RoB due to confounding, whereas bias due to selective reporting of results (including effect estimates) was rare”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Included studies mainly came from the US and Europe, while South America, Asia/Oceania, and Africa were underrepresented.

    “As included studies mainly derived from the US and Europe, whereas South America, Asia/Oceania, and Africa were underrepresented, the present findings might not be generalizable to populations not conforming to the WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) stereotype (Henrich et al., 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In meta-regression, overall risk of bias was the only significant predictor, with lower risk of bias associated with smaller effect sizes.

    “In the final model (21 studies, R2 = .29), overall RoB rating (B = −0.35 [−0.64, −0.07]) was the only significant predictor, indicating that an overall lower RoB was associated with smaller effect sizes”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Loneliness is linked to factors beyond social isolation, including stable individual traits, environmental factors, physical and mental health, and cultural norms.

    “This is because loneliness is related to factors other than social isolation, including temporally stable characteristics of the individual (Mund et al., 2020) and their environment such as personality traits, need for contact and expectations of relationships (Qualter et al., 2015), physical and mental health, and cultural norms (Gierveld et al., 2018; Lim et al., 2020)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Mund et al., 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Qualter et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gierveld et al., 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I domains, independently rated by two authors, and merged.

    “Bias domains included in the ROBINS-I tool (Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2, 2021, Chapter 25, section 4) were used”
    • Also stated in: § Methods for Assessing Risk to Internal Validity/Risk of Bias · plain
      “For each study and domain, the RoB was independently rated by two authors as “low”, “moderate” or “serious”. Their assessments were merged”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Loneliness raises the risk of early death and of mental and physical health problems.

    “which increases the risk of premature mortality and mental and physical health conditions”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “largely due to their serious impact on longevity, mental and physical health, and well-being (Fried et al., 2020; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015; Leigh-Hunt et al., 2017)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Fried et al., 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Leigh-Hunt et al., 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Study selection was performed independently by four researchers, discrepancies were resolved by discussion, and eligibility was verified by senior researchers.

    “This step was conducted independently by four members of the research group (postdoctoral/senior researchers with previous experience conducting reviews and/or meta-analyses, three psychologists (two full professors) and one medical doctor (assistant professor))”
    • Also stated in: § Study Selection · plain
      “Discrepancies were resolved through discussion”
    • Also stated in: § Study Selection · plain
      “Senior researchers (mathematician and medical doctor/psychologist, full professors) verified the eligibility of included studies”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A more recent systematic review found that longitudinal studies mainly reported increases in loneliness.

    “A more recent systematic review, which included neither a meta-analysis nor a meta-regression (Buecker & Horstmann, 2021), found that longitudinal studies mainly reported increases in loneliness”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Buecker & Horstmann, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Studies have reported stable, increased, and decreased loneliness levels during the pandemic.

    “Studies have reported stable (Peng & Roth, 2021; Sibley et al., 2020), as well as increases (Kovacs et al., 2021; Macdonald & Hülür, 2021) and decreases (Bartrés-Faz et al., 2021) in loneliness levels”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Peng & Roth, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Sibley et al., 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Kovacs et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    It is unclear whether loneliness increased overall after the pandemic began.

    “However, it remains unclear whether loneliness has increased overall since the pandemic started (e.g., Killgore et al., 2020; Sutin et al., 2020)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Killgore et al., 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Sutin et al., 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The systematic review was registered at PROSPERO before the search was conducted.

    “This systematic review with meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (ID CRD42021246771)”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “The study protocol was registered before conducting the search”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The latest PRISMA guidelines were followed.

    “Throughout the systematic review, the latest PRISMA guidelines were followed (Page et al., 2021)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Page et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results.

    “To ascertain the results’ robustness, a series of sensitivity analyses were performed (1) including only studies with no ‘serious’ or ‘critical’ overall RoB rating, (2) combining longitudinal and pseudo-longitudinal study designs, (3) incorporating pre-pandemic assessments that overlapped with the date cut-offs specified above, and (4) excluding clinical populations”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    A 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis found no evidence of an increase in loneliness based on three studies.

    “A 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis of changes in mental health, focusing on longitudinal studies and natural experiments with pre-pandemic comparisons, found no evidence of increase in loneliness (based on three studies) (Prati & Mancini, 2021)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Prati & Mancini, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    An overall risk of bias rating was constructed for sensitivity analyses and meta-regression.

    “For use in sensitivity analyses and meta-regression, an overall RoB rating was constructed (≥1 “serious” rating in any domain resulted in a “serious” overall RoB; overall “low” RoB was only present when all domains were rated “low” risk; otherwise, overall risk was considered “moderate”)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Sustained or chronic loneliness jeopardizes mental and physical health.

    “previous research has shown that particularly sustained or chronic loneliness jeopardizes mental and physical health (Cacioppo et al., 2015; National Academies of Science, 2020)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Cacioppo et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites National Academies of Science, 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Confidence in the finding of an increase in loneliness is strengthened by sensitivity analyses, inclusion of high-quality longitudinal research, a large pooled sample, and lack of publication bias.

    “The confidence in the finding that there has been an increase in loneliness – albeit small – during the pandemic is strengthened by the results of the sensitivity analyses, the inclusion of only high-quality and longitudinal research in the meta-analyses, the relatively large number of studies with a pooled sample of 45,734 participants, and the lack of any indication of publication bias”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Without control samples that were not exposed to the pandemic, causal inference is weakened, so attributing loneliness increases to the pandemic is harder.

    “The lack of control samples unaffected by the pandemic weakens possible causal inference, making it more difficult to attribute the increase in loneliness to the pandemic.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The informative value of the meta-regression was hampered by the limited number of predictors that could be tested from available studies, which necessitated a stepwise procedure.

    “However, the informative value of the meta-regression was still hampered by the limited number of predictors that could be tested on the basis of the available studies (which also necessitated a stepwise procedure).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A previous rapid review and meta-analysis reported small increases in mental distress (g = 0.17) based on longitudinal studies.

    “A previous rapid review and meta-analysis (Prati & Mancini, 2021) reported small increases in mental distress (overall g = 0.17) based on longitudinal studies”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Prati & Mancini, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    That previous synthesis showed no statistically significant change in loneliness (g = 0.12, p = .34).

    “Their synthesis showed no statistically significant change in loneliness (g = 0.12, p = .34)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Prati & Mancini, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The overall increase in loneliness was small and heterogeneous.

    “This constitutes a small (Cohen, 1992; Ferguson, 2009) effect, which was also heterogeneous”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Cohen, 1992

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Ferguson, 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    There was no indication of outliers and none of the studies were overly influential.

    “Based on the examination of the studentized residuals, robustness analyses revealed that there was no indication of outliers and according to the Cook’s distances, none of the studies were overly influential”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation

    The numerical values of effect size indices often give limited understanding of real-world significance, because even statistically small effects can be highly important.

    “The numerical values of effect size indices often provide limited understanding of the real-world significance of those effects, as even statistically small effects can be of high importance (e.g., Meyer et al., 2001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Meyer et al., 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Restriction measures were coded from official mandates, but this might have been imprecise if measures differed between regions or if the assessment period spanned changing rules.

    “Restriction measures were coded based on official mandates, however, this might have been imprecise if measures differed between regions and/or if the assessment spanned a period in which these rules changed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Regional cut-offs were used to classify assessments as pre-pandemic or during-pandemic, but individuals might also have been affected by restrictions outside their place of residence, such as travel bans.

    “Furthermore, as the pandemic progressed differently around the world, we used regional cut-offs to distinguish whether study assessments had taken place before or during the pandemic, but individuals might also have been affected by restrictions outside their place of residence (e.g., travel bans).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Buecker et al. (2021) reported linear increases in loneliness in emerging adults over recent decades.

    “Furthermore, an alternative explanation for increases in loneliness in the population was recently provided by Buecker et al. (2021) who reported linear increases in emerging adults over the last decades.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Buecker et al., 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Earlier work found that social-support interventions, including buddy-care programs, had beneficial effects.

    “Previous research has shown positive effects of interventions enhancing social support (such as buddy-care programs) (Masi et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Masi et al., 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Prati and Mancini (2021) used meta-regression to explore predictors of increases in mental health symptoms during the pandemic and found no effects of mean age, gender, or study design.

    “Prati and Mancini (2021) explored, using meta-regression, predictors of increases in mental health symptoms during the pandemic. They found no effects of mean age, gender, or study design, either.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Prati & Mancini, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

36 of 36

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The pandemic and mitigation measures led to fewer social contacts (greater social isolation).

    “Since its outbreak, many countries around the world have enacted shelter-in-place and physical distancing orders, travel bans, and switched to remote work and education resulting in fewer social contacts (i.e., greater social isolation), which may in turn have increased loneliness”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Different loneliness measures assess the same underlying construct and can be pooled using standardized mean differences.

    “For interval- or pseudo-interval-scaled outcomes (continuous loneliness scores), weighted standardized mean differences (Hedges’ g) were used as effect size estimators”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Loneliness is a risk factor for premature mortality and for mental and physical health problems.

    “However, as loneliness constitutes a risk for premature mortality and mental and physical health, it should be closely monitored, ideally in combination with potential risk and protective factors and health outcomes to derive appropriate interventions.”
3 of 3

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?

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value: (Z = 0.205, p = .238

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .238 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .838 (two-tailed). The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .238 · recomputed p = .838

1 of 1

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upz = 0.205reported p = .238 · recomputed p = .838

    “(Z = 0.205, p = .238”

  • Consistentz = 4.02reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “Z=4.02, p < .001”

  • Consistentz = 2.25reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .024

    “Z=2.25, p = .02”

  • Consistentz = 0.236reported p = .813 · recomputed p = .813

    “(Z = 0.236, p = .813”

4 of 4

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Risk-of-bias effect is interpreted in opposite directions

    Minor

    The results say lower risk of bias was associated with smaller effects, while the discussion says higher risk of bias was associated with smaller effects. The reported negative coefficient, with moderate risk coded 0 and serious risk coded 1, supports the discussion's direction.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 73 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2. (2021). (Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, & Welch VA, Eds.). Cochrane. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook PMC10284251 31643080
  2. Gierveld JDJ, & Tilburg TV (2006). A 6-item scale for overall, emotional, and social loneliness: Confirmatory tests on survey data. Research on Aging, 28(5), 582– 598.
  3. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine,. (2020). Social Isolation and Loneliness in Older Adults: Opportunities for the Health Care System. National Academies Press. 32510896
  4. Perlman D, & Peplau LA (1981). Toward a social psychology of loneliness. In Gilmour R & Duck S (Eds.), Personal Relationships (Vol. 3, pp. 31– 56). Academic Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ernst, M., Niederer, D., Werner, A. M., Czaja, S. J., Mikton, C., Ong, A. D., Rosen, T., Brähler, E., & Beutel, M. E.
Affiliations
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
  • Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
  • World Health Organization (CH)
  • Cornell University (US)
  • NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Ernst, Mareike
ORCID
Venue
American Psychologist
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2022-07
Volume
77
Issue
5
Pages
660-677
ISSN
  • 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-990X
DOI
10.1037/amp0001005
PMC
PMC9768682
OpenAlex
W4229451984
Cited by
584
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 83 · 2025: 144 · 2024: 172 · 2023: 143 · 2022: 41
FWCI
114.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • American Psychologist (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Mainz Research Center for Mental Health
  • National Institute on Aging (K76 AG054866)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
Keywords
loneliness, COVID-19 pandemic, social distancing, prevalence of loneliness, pre-pandemic comparison, mental health, social isolation, risk factors for loneliness
MeSH terms
COVID-19, Humans, Loneliness, Prospective Studies, Pandemics

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-05.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-05.

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