Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38114963›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2023

Disability and loneliness in the United Kingdom: cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of trends and transitions.

Eric Emerson, Roger J Stancliffe, Zoe Aitken, Jodie Bailie, Glenda M Bishop, Hannah Badland, Gwynnyth Llewellyn, Anne M Kavanagh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Eric EmersonCentre for Disability Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. eric.emerson@lancaster.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1776-6032
Roger J StancliffeCentre for Disability Research and Policy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4265-7433
Zoe AitkenMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5413-2450
Jodie BailieCentre for Disability Research and Policy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4393-5773
Glenda M BishopMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2736-0415
Hannah BadlandSocial and Global Studies Centre, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, 3001, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8936-2715
Gwynnyth LlewellynCentre for Disability Research and Policy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2014-4330
Anne M KavanaghMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1573-3464
The University of Melbourne · AUThe University of Sydney · AUFlinders University · AURMIT University · AU

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council 1116385 and 2010290
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLoneliness can have a detrimental impact on health, yet little is known about the association between disability and loneliness.

methodsSecondary analysis of three waves of data collected between 2017 and 2020 by the UK's annual household panel study, Understanding Society. Direct age-standardisation was used to compare the prevalence of loneliness at each wave and the persistence of loneliness across all three waves for participants with/without disabilities aged 16-65 years. Transitional probabilities for the stability of loneliness, the stability of non-loneliness, the onset of loneliness and the offset of loneliness between consecutive waves were also estimated.

resultsAt each wave, the prevalence of loneliness was significantly higher among respondents with disabilities than respondents without disabilities; these inequalities persisted with no evidence of change over time. The prevalence of persistent loneliness was 46% for respondents with disabilities compared with 22% for respondents without disabilities. Risk factors for the likelihood of persistent loneliness included disability, financial stress, not living as a couple, living in rented accommodation, being female and not being employed. The probability of the onset and stability of loneliness between successive waves were markedly higher for people with disabilities compared with people without disabilities.

conclusionAdults with disabilities were more likely to experience loneliness, become lonely and remain lonely over time than their peers. Policies and interventions aimed at reducing loneliness should ensure that they are accessible and effective for people with disabilities. Further research is needed to explore the health outcomes of persistent loneliness among people with/without disabilities.

Indexed as

LonelinessPersons with DisabilitiesAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleRisk FactorsUnited KingdomDisabilityInequalityLonelinessTrajectoriesTransitions

Identifiers

PMID38114963
PMCPMC10729364
OpenAlexW4389933884

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.