Loneliness in the general population: prevalence, determinants and relations to mental health

By Manfred E. Beutel, Eva M. Klein, Elmar Brähler, I. Reiner, C. Jünger, M. Michal, J. Wiltink, P. Wild, T. Münzel, K. Lackner and 1 more. BMC Psychiatry, 2017

1,019 citations recorded by the source corpus.

BackgroundWhile loneliness has been regarded as a risk to mental and physical health, there is a lack of current community data covering a broad age range. This study used a large and representative German adult sample to investigate loneliness.MethodsBaseline data of the Gutenberg Health Study (GHS) collected between April 2007 and April 2012 (N = 15,010; 35–74 years), were analyzed. Recruitment for the community-based, prospective, observational cohort study was performed in equal strata for gender, residence and age decades. Measures were provided by self-report and interview. Loneliness was used as a predictor for distress (depression, generalized anxiety, and suicidal ideation) in logistic regression analyses adjusting for sociodemographic variables and mental distress.ResultsA total of 10.5% of participants reported some degree of loneliness (4.9% slight, 3.9% moderate and 1.7% severely distressed by loneliness). Loneliness declined across age groups. Loneliness was stronger in women, in participants without a partner, and in those living alone and without children. Controlling for demographic variables and other sources of distress loneliness was associated with depression (OR = 1.91), generalized anxiety (OR = 1.21) and suicidal ideation (OR = 1.35). Lonely participants also smoked more and visited physicians more frequently.ConclusionsThe findings support the view that loneliness poses a significant health problem for a sizeable part of the population with increased risks in terms of distress (depression, anxiety), suicidal ideation, health behavior and health care utilization.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Health, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a5a1cd3ffce0521239532d155fc2b51bb74b759f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

  1. S. Bucci
  2. Natalie Berry
  3. M. Schwannauer

Citations in the corpus