Cited by 1Health disparities and outcomesMedicine, History, and PhilosophyCOVID-19 and Mental Health

Loneliness: an incommunicable disease?

Open access
Franklin, Jonathan·2020·British Journal of General Practice

Abstract

ATOMISATIONFor many people the experience of isolation did not begin with the current pandemic.Loneliness has long been a problem on both sides of the GP's desk, but with opposing consequences.Socially alienated patients are more likely to experience health problems, and a desire for companionship can motivate a visit to the GP. 1 Conversely, GPs who find themselves without professional support or collegiality have an increased chance of leaving the profession.2,3 The lonely patient is more likely to be in the surgery, and the isolated doctor less likely to be there.It is a poignant image: two contrapuntal lonelinesses, neither of which finds solace in the other.The problem of patients' social isolation has attracted attention from many quarters in recent years, with a ministerial appointment, a national campaign, and research from scholars of public health, neuroendocrinology, sociology, psychology, and history.The former surgeon general of the US states that combatting disconnection is the 'greatest challenge facing us today'.4 The health effects are still debated: loneliness is associated with, but perhaps not fully responsible for, cardiovascular and neurological morbidities, inflammatory dysregulation, and a contributor to early mortality.[5][6][7] Yet medicalisation can only take us so far in understanding isolation: biomedicine may be able to identify some of the physiological consequences, but it is unlikely to proffer any meaningful therapies for a condition that historians and sociologists have located, inter alia, as the result of increased affluence, 8 surging inequality, 9 and modernity's individualistic obsession with self-cultivation.10 This is a problem, like racial inequality or environmental pollution, that saturates the

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 · 10.3399/bjgp20x712541

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Franklin, J.
Affiliations
University of Warwick (GB)
Corresponding author
Franklin, Jonathan
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2020-08-27
Volume
70
Issue
698
Pages
463-463
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
OpenAlex
W3082445449
Cited by
1
References
13
Citations by year
2021: 1
FWCI
0.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Medicine, History, and Philosophy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
Keywords
loneliness, social isolation, general practice, general practitioners, medicalization, cardiovascular disease, mortality, social determinants of health, inequality, individualism
MeSH terms
Humans, Loneliness

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