Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39367963›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of ageing2024

Do middle-aged and older people underreport loneliness? experimental evidence from the Netherlands.

Thijs van den Broek, Jack Lam, Cecilia Potente

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of ageing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Thijs van den BroekErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. vandenbroek@eshpm.eur.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0716-6009
Jack LamDiscipline of Sociology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7169-4930
Cecilia PotenteErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9096-2841

Funding

H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions 895537
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the growing acknowledgment of the importance of loneliness among older individuals, questionnaire length constraints may hinder the inclusion of common multi-item loneliness scales in surveys. Direct, single-item loneliness measures are a practical alternative, but scholars have expressed concerns that such measures may lead to underreporting. Our aim was to test whether such reservations are justified. We conducted a preregistered list experiment among 2,553 people aged 50 + who participated in the Dutch Longitudinal Internet studies for the Social Sciences (LISS) panel. The list experiment method has been developed to unobtrusively gather sensitive information. We compared the list experiment estimate of the prevalence of frequent loneliness with the corresponding direct question estimate to assess downward bias in the latter. Next to pooled models, we estimated models stratified by gender to assess whether loneliness underreporting differed between women and men. Relying on the direct question, we estimated that 5.9% of respondents frequently felt lonely. Our list experiment indicated that the prevalence of frequent loneliness was 13.1%. Although substantial in magnitude, the difference between both estimates was only marginally significant (Δb: 0.072, 95% CI: - 0.003;0.148, p = .06). No evidence of gender differences was found. Although we cannot be conclusive that loneliness estimates are biased downward when a direct question is used, our results call for caution with direct, single-item measures of loneliness if researchers want to avoid underreporting. Replications are needed to gain more precise insights into the extent to which direct, single-item loneliness measures are prone to downward reporting bias.

Indexed as

LonelinessReporting biasSocial desirabilityStigmaSurvey experiment

Identifiers

PMID39367963
PMCPMC11456021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.