Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37625251›Full record

ReviewSocial science & medicine (1982)2023

Risk factors for loneliness: A literature review.

Martina Barjaková, Andrea Garnero, Béatrice d'Hombres

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Social science & medicine (1982), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
49.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

88 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 178 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Loneliness trajectories surrounding mobility loss: the role of disability duration.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Martina BarjakováDepartment of Psychology, University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy.
Andrea GarneroDirectorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, OECD, France.
Béatrice d'HombresEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Italy. Electronic address: Beatrice.DHOMBRES@ec.europa.eu.
European Commission · BEOrganisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques · FRUniversity of Milano-Bicocca · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleIncreasingly, loneliness is being recognised as a serious problem with detrimental effects on health, as well as on social cohesion and community trust. To effectively tackle this complex issue, a clear understanding of the phenomenon and its main drivers is needed. Over years of scientific research on loneliness, many potential risk factors have emerged and been tested empirically.

objectiveThis narrative review of 109 studies provides a concise summary of empirical evidence on the main potential risk factors for loneliness and presents an additional section dedicated to the COVID-19 pandemic.

methodGiven the very large number of existing studies, emphasis is placed on recent meta-analyses and systematic literature reviews as well as longitudinal studies. Similarly, given the large number of possible risk factors for loneliness, which may differ based on the geographical and cultural context, this review focuses on studies from Europe and North America.

resultsThe results show that demographic factors often correlate with loneliness, but in many cases the link becomes negligible when controlling for other factors. Often, physical and mental health problems are found to be associated with loneliness, and so are some psychological factors, such as neuroticism or extroversion. Loneliness also depends on the environment in which one lives, and possibly the broader socio-economic and socio-cultural contexts. Nevertheless, the review shows that ultimately everything comes down to the quantity and quality of social relationships. In particular, marital status, living arrangements and the characteristics of one's personal social network are quite consistently found to be among the strongest predictors of loneliness. These main findings about the risk factors for loneliness remained valid also during the COVID-19 pandemic. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The findings of this review have implications for policy, as understanding who the most vulnerable groups are is key for designing targeted policy solutions that tackle loneliness.

Indexed as

COVID-19EuropeHumansLonelinessPandemicsRisk FactorsIndividual risk factors for lonelinessLiterature reviewLoneliness and COVID-19Societal risk factors for loneliness

Identifiers

PMID37625251
PMCPMC10523154
OpenAlexW4385652025

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.