Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40055453›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Social networks and loneliness differ between LGBTIA and cis-heterosexual persons: results from a two-wave survey in Germany.

Philip Oeser, Tristan Wellendorff, Hendrik Napierala, Marie Bolster, Paul Gellert, Wolfram Herrmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Philip OeserInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. philip.oeser@charite.de.
Tristan WellendorffInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Hendrik NapieralaInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Marie BolsterInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Paul GellertInstitute of Medical Sociology and Rehabilitation Science, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Wolfram HerrmannInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current research suggests LGBTIA persons to be lonelier than cis-heterosexual persons. While they rely more on friends than on family as support network, their social network and weekly contact to family and friends, as well as the association between the social network and loneliness have not been fully explored yet. The aim of this analysis was to examine differences in the social network between LGBTIA and cis-heterosexual persons in Germany, and how these differences affect loneliness. Data was collected through an online survey conducted in two independent waves in March/April 2020 and in January/February 2021. Linear regression analyses were performed to examine the influence of the social network on loneliness. Of 6784 participants, 5442 identified as LGBTIA. Weekly contact to family was lower in the LGBTIA group than in cis-heterosexuals. LGBTIA were less likely to be in a relationship. Identifying as LGBTIA increased social and emotional loneliness. Differences in social network partly explained the risk for social loneliness of LGBTIA persons and, to a lower degree, the risk for emotional loneliness. We encourage health care professionals to inquire about sexual orientation, gender identity, and relationship status to raise awareness for feelings of loneliness and related health problems.

Indexed as

HeterosexualityLonelinessSexual and Gender MinoritiesSocial NetworkingAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedSocial SupportSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultEmotional lonelinessLGBTMental healthSocial lonelinessSocial network

Identifiers

PMID40055453
PMCPMC11889243

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.