ArticleEuropean journal of ageing2024
Do middle-aged and older people underreport loneliness? experimental evidence from the Netherlands.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Worrying about future finances and sleep problems: loneliness as a psychosocial pathway.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
- Loneliness Prevalence and Correlates Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults in Taiwan: Clinical Utility of Brief Screening Measures.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Article
- Cognitive processes and pathways between social isolation, loneliness, and paranoia: findings from a cross-lagged network analysis of population-based data.Psychological medicine · 2025Article
- Demographic and work-related correlates of general and workplace loneliness among employees in Japan: a large-scale descriptive cross-sectional study.Journal of occupational health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.