Dataset Information

Loneliness and sleep: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Despite the mounting evidence linking loneliness with health, the mechanisms underlying this relationship remain obscure. This systematic review and meta-analysis on the association between loneliness and one potential mechanism-sleep-identified 27 relevant articles. Loneliness correlated with self-reported sleep disturbance (r?=?.28, 95% confidence interval (.24, .33)) but not duration, across a diverse set of samples and measures. There was no evidence supporting age or gender as moderators or suggesting publication bias. The longitudinal relationship between loneliness and sleep remains unclear. Loneliness is related to sleep disturbance, but research is necessary to determine directionality, examine the influence of other factors, and speak to causality.

SUBMITTER: Griffin SC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7139193 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan-Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Loneliness and sleep: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Griffin Sarah C SC Williams Allison B AB Ravyts Scott G SG Mladen Samantha N SN Rybarczyk Bruce D BD

Health psychology open 20200101 1

Despite the mounting evidence linking loneliness with health, the mechanisms underlying this relationship remain obscure. This systematic review and meta-analysis on the association between loneliness and one potential mechanism-sleep-identified 27 relevant articles. Loneliness correlated with self-reported sleep disturbance (<i>r</i> = .28, 95% confidence interval (.24, .33)) but not duration, across a diverse set of samples and measures. There was no evidence supporting age or gender as modera ...[more]

PMID: 32284871

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify data availability, gaps, and patterns for population level prevalence of loneliness globally, to summarise prevalence estimates within World Health Organization regions when feasible through meta-analysis, and to examine temporal trends of loneliness in countries where data exist.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesEmbase, Medline, PsycINFO, and Scopus for peer reviewed literature, and Google Scholar and Open Grey for grey literature, supplemented by backward reference searching (to 1 September 2021) ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Observational studies based on nationally representative samples (n≥292), validated instruments, and prevalence data for 2000-19. Two researchers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted in the subset of studies with relatively homogeneous research methods by measurement instrument, age group, and WHO region.ResultsPrevalence data were available for 113 countries or territories, according to official WHO nomenclature for regions, from 57 studies. Data were available for adolescents (12-17 years) in 77 countries or territories, young adults (18-29 years) in 30 countries, middle aged adults (30-59 years) in 32 countries, and older adults (≥60 years) in 40 countries. Data for all age groups except adolescents were lacking outside of Europe. Overall, 212 estimates for 106 countries from 24 studies were included in meta-analyses. The pooled prevalence of loneliness for adolescents ranged from 9.2% (95% confidence interval 6.8% to 12.4%) in South-East Asia to 14.4% (12.2% to 17.1%) in the Eastern Mediterranean region. For adults, meta-analysis was conducted for the European region only, and a consistent geographical pattern was shown for all adult age groups. The lowest prevalence of loneliness was consistently observed in northern European countries (2.9%, 1.8% to 4.5% for young adults; 2.7%, 2.4% to 3.0% for middle aged adults; and 5.2%, 4.2% to 6.5% for older adults) and the highest in eastern European countries (7.5%, 5.9% to 9.4% for young adults; 9.6%, 7.7% to 12.0% for middle aged adults; and 21.3%, 18.7% to 24.2% for older adults).ConclusionProblematic levels of loneliness are experienced by a substantial proportion of the population in many countries. The substantial difference in data coverage between high income countries (particularly Europe) and low and middle income countries raised an important equity issue. Evidence on the temporal trends of loneliness is insufficient. The findings of this meta-analysis are limited by data scarcity and methodological heterogeneity. Loneliness should be incorporated into general health surveillance with broader geographical and age coverage, using standardised and validated measurement tools.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019131448.

Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic and measures aimed at its mitigation, such as physical distancing, have been discussed as risk factors for loneliness, which increases the risk of premature mortality and mental and physical health conditions. To ascertain whether loneliness has increased since the start of the pandemic, this study aimed to narratively and statistically synthesize relevant high-quality primary studies. This systematic review with meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (ID CRD42021246771). Searched databases were PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library/Central Register of Controlled Trials/EMBASE/CINAHL, Web of Science, the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 database, supplemented by Google Scholar and citation searching (cutoff date of the systematic search December 5, 2021). Summary data from prospective research including loneliness assessments before and during the pandemic were extracted. Of 6,850 retrieved records, 34 studies (23 longitudinal, 9 pseudolongitudinal, 2 reporting both designs) on 215,026 participants were included. Risk of bias (RoB) was estimated using the risk of bias in non-randomised studies-of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Standardized mean differences (SMD, Hedges' g) for continuous loneliness values and logOR for loneliness prevalence rates were calculated as pooled effect size estimators in random-effects meta-analyses. Pooling studies with longitudinal designs only (overall N = 45,734), loneliness scores (19 studies, SMD = 0.27 [95% confidence interval = 0.14-0.40], Z = 4.02, p < .001, I 2 = 98%) and prevalence rates (8 studies, logOR = 0.33 [0.04-0.62], Z = 2.25, p = .02, I 2 = 96%) increased relative to prepandemic times with small effect sizes. Results were robust with respect to studies' overall RoB, pseudolongitudinal designs, timing of prepandemic assessments, and clinical populations. The heterogeneity of effects indicates a need to further investigate risk and protective factors as the pandemic progresses to inform targeted interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Dataset Information

Loneliness and sleep: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Loneliness and sleep: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets