Stegen Hannelore, Duppen Daan, Savieri Perseverence, Stas Lara, Pan Honghui, Aartsen Marja, Callewaert Hannelore, Dierckx Eva, De Donder Liesbeth
Society and Ageing Research Lab (SARLab), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.
Research Foundation Flanders (FWO), Brussels, Belgium.
Int Psychogeriatr. 2024 Sep;36(9):747-761. doi: 10.1017/S1041610224000425. Epub 2024 Mar 25.
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the prevalence of loneliness in many countries worldwide which have different ways of assessing it.
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
We searched seven electronic databases for English peer-reviewed studies published between 1992 and 2021.
We selected English-language peer-reviewed articles, with data from non-clinical populations of community-dwelling older adults (>60 years), and with "loneliness" or "lonely" in the title.
A multilevel random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the prevalence of loneliness across studies and to pool prevalence rates for different measurement instruments, data collection methods, and countries.
Our initial search identified 2,021 studies of which 45 ( = 101 prevalence rates) were included in the final meta-analysis. The estimated pooled prevalence rate was 31.6% ( = 168,473). Measurement instrument was a statistically significant moderator of the overall prevalence of loneliness. Loneliness prevalence was lowest for single-item questions and highest for the 20-item University of California-Los Angeles Loneliness Scale. Also, differences between modes of data collection were significant: the loneliness prevalence was significantly the highest for face-to-face data collection and the lowest for telephone and CATI data collection. Our moderator analysis to look at the country effect indicated that four of the six dimensions of Hofstede also caused a significant increase (Power Distance Index, Uncertainty Avoidance Index, Indulgence) or decrease (Individualism) in loneliness prevalence.
This study suggests that there is high variability in loneliness prevalence rates among community-dwelling older adults, influenced by measurement instrument used, mode of data collection, and country.
本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在评估全球许多国家孤独感的患病率，这些国家评估孤独感的方式各不相同。
系统评价和荟萃分析。
我们在七个电子数据库中检索了1992年至2021年间发表的英文同行评审研究。
我们选择了英文同行评审文章，其数据来自社区居住的老年人（>60岁）的非临床人群，且标题中包含“孤独感”或“孤独的”。
采用多层次随机效应荟萃分析来估计各研究中孤独感的患病率，并汇总不同测量工具、数据收集方法和国家的患病率。
我们最初的检索确定了2021项研究，其中45项（=101个患病率）纳入了最终的荟萃分析。估计的合并患病率为31.6%（=168473）。测量工具是孤独感总体患病率的一个具有统计学意义的调节因素。单项问题的孤独感患病率最低，而20项的加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校孤独感量表的患病率最高。此外，数据收集方式之间的差异也很显著：面对面数据收集的孤独感患病率显著最高，电话和计算机辅助电话调查（CATI）数据收集的患病率最低。我们查看国家效应的调节因素分析表明，霍夫斯泰德六个维度中的四个维度也导致孤独感患病率显著增加（权力距离指数、不确定性规避指数、放纵）或降低（个人主义）。
本研究表明，社区居住的老年人中孤独感患病率存在很大差异，这受到所使用的测量工具、数据收集方式和国家的影响。
