Abstract
Recently, work conducted by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre demonstrated that Ireland had the highest prevalence of loneliness of all European countries. Given the range of adverse physical and psychological consequences associated with loneliness, it is vital to ask why Ireland is experiencing such high prevalence. Here, we discuss potential contributing factors, including: Ireland’s socioeconomic profile; migration patterns; demographic characteristics; rurality; recreation/culture/sports/healthcare expenditure; and social cohesion. We suggest that Ireland may have high levels of loneliness because of its young age profile, rurality, and factors linked to migration. Ireland may also lack the social infrastructure necessary to combat loneliness, yielding a potentially “lonelygenic” environment. Finally, implications for policy are discussed.
The Issue of Loneliness
Loneliness is an unpleasant feeling associated with a deficiency in the quality or quantity of social relationships (Peplau and Perlman, 1982). In 2022, the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) published concerning findings regarding loneliness across Europe, and particularly, in Ireland. According to the findings, 20% of Irish people reported that they felt lonely most or all of the time, compared to 13% of all Europeans surveyed (Berlingieri et al., 2023). Given that loneliness is linked to a broad array of undesirable outcomes, it is critical that we in Ireland reflect on a) why Ireland had the highest loneliness prevalence rates, and b) what we can do about it.
Loneliness is already understood to be a critical public health issue, to the extent that it has been called an “epidemic” by some (Murthy, 2017). This is because loneliness has been linked, as a risk factor, to higher rates of all-cause early mortality (Wang et al., 2023, Zhou et al., 2023); functional decline (Shankar et al., 2017); cardiovascular disease (Valtorta et al., 2016); depression and suicidality (Baarck and Kovacic, 2022, Hong et al., 2023); and dementia (Luchetti et al., 2024). It is likely that loneliness effects health via physiological pathways (e.g. impaired immunity), psychological pathways (e.g. stress) and behaviours (e.g. poor sleep; (Cacioppo et al., 2014). The impact of loneliness on health may vary across countries; loneliness is a stronger predictor of poor health and mortality in more collectivistic countries (Beller and Wagner, 2020, Park and Zhu, 2024).
The breadth of evidence linking loneliness to poor health has attracted the attention of policymakers around the world. Countries beginning with the UK, followed by Norway, Japan, Denmark, Netherlands, France, and the US have created ministries, strategies, or policies about tackling loneliness. In these policies, loneliness is often considered as an absence of social connection (Holt-Lunstad, 2023). However, evaluation of such policies is limited to date (Card and Hepburn, 2023). Policies beyond those directly tackling loneliness are also of interest, however. It was made clear during the COVID-19 pandemic, when physical distancing measures led to increased loneliness levels, that many types of policy can have inadvertent effects on loneliness levels (Li et al., 2023, Jackson et al., 2023, Litwin and Erlich, 2023, Dahlberg, 2021). For instance, social policies which involve higher expenditure on welfare and pensions are associated with reduced loneliness in later life (Oh and Choi, 2024).
With the importance of a broad range of policies in mind, and in the hopes that this may help future policymakers be aware of loneliness as an unintended consequence, we considered the potential factors responsible for the high levels of loneliness identified in Ireland by the JRC. We preface our discussion with two caveats. First, recent analyses demonstrate that just 4% of the variance in loneliness can be attributed to country-level effects (Langenkamp et al., 2023), meaning that most of the variance in loneliness is likely due to other factors. Secondly, there may be cause for concern regarding the manner in which loneliness was measured by the JRC; a single-item measure was used, which led to issues in construct validity and comparability across countries (Paris et al., 2024). A Meta-Gallup survey on social connections and loneliness conducted in the same year as the JRC survey yielded lower prevalence of loneliness in Ireland[i]; in the Gallup poll, France (20%), Portugal (17%), Serbia and Bulgaria (24%), and Montenegro (30%) all had higher prevalence of loneliness than Ireland. The JRC survey nevertheless acts as an interesting trigger to consider whether loneliness prevalence in Ireland is of concern.
Sociodemographic Correlates of Loneliness
It is worth first considering sociodemographic factors which might explain higher levels of loneliness in Ireland. The JRC report found that high rates of loneliness were evident in: younger people; those with a low income and low education; rural dwellers; those with a parent from another country; and those who identify as LGBTQI+ (Berlingieri et al., 2023). Countries with a typically higher socioeconomic status of citizens, with higher income, education, employment, and social participation levels, typically have lower levels of loneliness (Berlingieri et al., 2023, Surkalim et al., 2022). 59.4% of the Irish population are aged under 45, and the median age in Ireland at 38.8 years is the second-lowest in the EU27 (Eurostat, 2024). The Irish age profile may go a long way towards explaining relatively higher levels of loneliness in a European context, since younger people have a higher likelihood of reporting loneliness. Rurality and population density may contribute to loneliness too (Berlingieri et al., 2023). With 75.2 persons per squared kilometre, Ireland has one of the lowest population densities of all EU countries (Eurostat, 2024).
However, by some other measures, Ireland’s socioeconomic profile would seem to predict lower levels of loneliness. Regarding employment, for instance, Ireland has an employment rate of 73.2% in 2022, relative to the EU average of 69.8% (Central Statistics Office, 2022). With respect to education, Ireland has the highest prevalence of people aged 25-34 with a third-level qualification across the EU (60%; (Central Statistics Office, 2022)). Ireland has a combined informal and formal volunteering rate of 35%, also comparable to other EU countries (Eurofound, 2018).
Somewhat more problematically, Ireland has the largest gap between highest and lowest income of all high-income EU countries (Nugent, 2018), which may influence loneliness levels among some population subgroups. Elsewhere Ireland has been characterised as a horizontal individualistic culture (Woodard et al., 2016, Hofstede et al., 2010), in which individuals share egalitarian values and expect a smaller power distance among societal members. Such a cultural profile is ostensibly linked to lower levels of loneliness across 16 countries examined (Schermer et al., 2023, Barreto et al., 2021), potentially because their populations are less emotionally isolated (Swader and Moraru, 2023). Ireland is ostensibly an individualistic country; so it would be expected to have low levels of loneliness.
Moreover, according to national data, Ireland has a relatively high expenditure on social protection in the EU context (Central Statistics Office, 2023), but European agency Eurostat report that Ireland has very low spending on recreation, culture, and sports as a percentage of GDP in 2022. Public and private healthcare expenditure in Ireland, a marker of broader health of a nation, was the fourth lowest in the EU and well below the EU average (Central Statistics Office, 2022). Low expenditure in these domains is linked with higher country-level loneliness (Swader and Moraru, 2023).
Both inward and outward migration had increased in the year to April 2023 in Ireland (Central Statistics Office, 2022) – 149,200 people moved to Ireland while 69,900 moved from Ireland during the year to April 2024 (Gilmartin, 2024). Inward and outward migration are both associated with increased loneliness, both in the JRC report -(Berlingieri et al., 2023), and elsewhere (Delaruelle, 2023). Migration is likely to particularly yield loneliness in situations where migrants are leaving traumatic experiences such as war (Rüdel and Joly, 2024), as has been the case for many migrants in recent years. Outward migration from Ireland also impacts loneliness, since there are those ‘left behind’ by emigrants (Miltiades, 2002, Thapa et al., 2018).
Another correlate of loneliness identified by the JRC report was trust in others and social cohesion; loneliness is elsewhere found to be higher among countries with lower levels of trust in others, using data from the European Social Survey (Rapolienė and Aartsen, 2022). However, the OECD reports that Ireland has high levels of governmental trust (OECD, 2022) which would predict low levels of loneliness.
Elsewhere internet penetration has been cited as a critical factor in predicting country-level loneliness (Swader and Moraru, 2023). In Ireland, 94% of households had access to the internet in 2022, which is above the EU average of 91% (Central Statistics Office, 2022), again predicting that Ireland would have lower loneliness levels than the EU average. Nationally representative data from older Irish adults indicates that daily internet use is not associated with loneliness (Mohan & Lyons, 2024), although it may reduce the negative impact of living alone on loneliness in this age group (Silva, Matos, and Martinez-Pecino, 2022).
In summary, Ireland may have high levels of loneliness because of its age profile, rurality, and high levels of inward and outward migration. Ireland’s economic profile in particular may drive higher levels of loneliness: the broad gap between highest and lowest earners, and low government expenditure on recreation, culture, sport, and healthcare are all predictive of high levels of loneliness. Other socioeconomic features of Ireland – its horizontal individualistic nature, its high levels of internet penetration, high levels of governmental trust, and high levels of education and employment – would seem to suggest that it ought to have low prevalence of loneliness, however.
Importantly, there may also be environmental factors to consider. What may be missing from Ireland is adequate social infrastructure; the distribution of social resources may be inadequate and uneven, yielding what Swader refers to as “park, café, and library deserts” (Swader and Moraru, 2023). Swader describes Ireland as the only country of all EU countries explored in his study which relies solely on the “commercial pathway” to resolving loneliness via infrastructure. Simply put, Ireland lacks third spaces or social spaces for the population to meet and socialise at, relying instead on places of commerce such as cafes, and restaurants (and, presumably, pubs), in which Ireland has the highest per capita expenditure, and this is reflected in under-resourced recreational, cultural, and sports activities (ibid).
Reflecting on Loneliness in Ireland: Implications for Policy
Both bottom-up (e.g. interventions and programs) and top-down (policies and national strategies) are likely to have a role in addressing loneliness (Sandu et al., 2021). Fried describes the “designing out” of loneliness through a policy-oriented approach which prioritises the consolidation of social infrastructure which prioritises social connection (Fried et al., 2020). Evaluation of policies concerning loneliness internationally is limited (Card and Hepburn, 2023). Some countries in Europe have created national strategies to reduce loneliness, e.g. the United Kingdom, Netherlands (Goldman et al., 2024). Programs such as the MONALISA in France (Monalisa-asso.fr) attempt to marshal the collective action of individuals to implement national strategies on reducing loneliness, integrating bottom-up and top-down approaches (Zolomyi, 2019). In Ireland, loneliness is addressed within the national Health Services Executive (HSE) Mental Health Promotion Plan 2022-27, with social prescribing the main solution proposed (Doherty et al., 2020). Social prescribing is the provision of non-clinical community supports, usually involving social support in some form, which is usually prescribed for individuals who require health or mental health support, or those who are experiencing loneliness, social isolation, or other social needs.
Given the risk factors for loneliness identified above, and the probable drivers of loneliness in Ireland, broader policy changes are identifiable which could also prevent or alleviate loneliness, thus making existing policies more loneliness-sensitive, rather than developing policies which specifically target loneliness. Focusing these policy changes on younger Irish people would likely most effectively reduce the prevalence of loneliness in Ireland. Interventions which are specifically effective among young adults include social skills training, psychological therapy interventions, and hobby-based interventions (Eccles and Qualter, 2021).
With respect to rurality, improving transport and opportunities for social connection in rural areas would alleviate loneliness associated with rurality. Focused efforts on preventing or alleviating loneliness associated with migration into Ireland, or with those with loved ones who have emigrated from Ireland, would also likely reduce overall loneliness levels. Of particular concern are immigrants with language barriers (Goldman et al., 2024). Increasing public expenditure on health more broadly is likely to also reduce loneliness, according to these findings.
Given the high proportion of Irish people living rurally and in low-density areas, it is worth considering the role of geography in loneliness and how best to mitigate it. As has been previously discussed (Goldman et al., 2024), transport is critical for ensuring those living in low-density and rural areas remain physically connected, to enable social connectedness.
In Ireland, policy should consider the funding of third spaces and public social infrastructure, especially social protection, and continuing to maintain and deepen internet accessibility. Public funding which focuses on recreation, culture and sport, and on availability of cost-neutral social spaces for citizens, would potentially yield a higher level of neighbourhood cohesion and reduce loneliness. Consideration of Irish communities from the lens of the “lonelygenic environment” (Feng and Astell-Burt, 2022) may also help to reduce loneliness in an Irish context. Urban planning has previously been identified as a key factor in reducing loneliness (Goldman et al., 2024) and provides a context in which such social infrastructure can be considered.
A very useful list of recommendations for creating loneliness policy was recently published (Goldman et al., 2024). This list was based on a scoping review of the loneliness policy landscape across Europe. One of the matters arising from this scoping review was the failure of most policies to address the cultural context of loneliness. Loneliness indeed varies greatly across countries (Rapolienė and Aartsen, 2022, Lykes and Kemmelmeier, 2014, Sheftel et al., 2023), at least partly because of differences in welfare system characteristics (Nyqvist et al., 2019), so a country-specific approach to loneliness policy is desirable.
Two approaches to loneliness can be taken by policymakers. Direct policy to tackle loneliness can be written, and existing policies can be evaluated for their potential impact on loneliness. In Ireland, the Loneliness Taskforce is a coalition of organisations and individuals working to address loneliness, by increasing awareness, and advocating for policy change in Ireland to address loneliness. A motion to the Seanad in May 2024 calling for governmental action to address loneliness was well supported[ii]. The motion called for the Irish government to fulfil their commitment made in the then Programme for Government, the Roadmap for Social Inclusion, and the Healthy Ireland Strategic Plan, to publish an action plan for addressing loneliness and social isolation.
In the governmental response to this motion, social prescribing was highlighted as a solution to loneliness, and mental health policies more broadly were referenced as existing strategies addressing loneliness (Sharing the Vision; Healthy Age Friendly Homes; Enhanced Community Care Programme; Roadmap for Social Inclusion 2020-2025). However, caveats apply with reliance on social prescribing. In an analysis of the UK policy response to loneliness, Jentoft and colleagues suggest that many direct loneliness policies in fact seek to place the responsibility of loneliness with individuals, so that they are provided with ways to manage their own loneliness – usually via social prescribing (Jentoft et al., 2024). While well-intentioned, this approach can problematise loneliness. Goldman advises that for policymakers interested in loneliness, loneliness experts should be involved in writing visions and strategies, and that intervention research particularly ought to be based on the understanding that no single intervention is universally effective (Goldman et al., 2024). As a result, considering how we respond, at a policy level, to loneliness in Ireland would benefit greatly from due consideration of the political meaning of the policies created in other countries, and the extent of their success.
We have considered potential drivers of loneliness in an Irish context, and extrapolated policy changes which could go some way to reducing the prevalence of loneliness in Ireland. It remains the case that the current incoming programme for government makes no reference to loneliness (January 2025), although several parties have demonstrated their commitment to the issue. In this context, and in the context of the World Health Organisation Commission on Social Connection (2024-2026), which addresses loneliness at a global public health level, it is imperative that policy in Ireland addresses loneliness.
Not all factors we mention here are easily addressed. While some (e.g. narrowing the gap between highest and lowest income earners) are not straightforward to address, others (e.g. focusing intervention efforts on specific at-risk groups including younger people and migrants with language barriers) are potentially more achievable. Of course, there are other drivers of loneliness beyond our discussion which may also be worth considering, but these are likely to provide a good starting point for those interested in reducing the burden of loneliness in Ireland. Such considerations may also provoke discussion in other countries interested in reducing or preventing high prevalence of loneliness.
References
BAARCK, J. & KOVACIC, M. 2022. The relationship between loneliness and health.
BARRETO, M., VICTOR, C., HAMMOND, C., ECCLES, A., RICHINS, M. T. & QUALTER, P. 2021. Loneliness around the world: Age, gender, and cultural differences in loneliness. Personality and individual differences, 169, 110066.
BELLER, J. & WAGNER, A. 2020. Loneliness and health: the moderating effect of cross-cultural individualism/collectivism. Journal of Aging and Health, 32, 1516-1527.
BERLINGIERI, F., COLAGROSSI, M. & MAURI, C. 2023. Loneliness and social connectedness: Insights from a new EU-wide survey. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
CACIOPPO, J. T., CACIOPPO, S. & BOOMSMA, D. I. 2014. Evolutionary mechanisms for loneliness. Cognition and Emotion, 28, 3-21.
CARD, K. & HEPBURN, K. 2023. A cross-jurisdictional scan of national anti-loneliness strategies. The Social Bubble Project. California: The Social Bubble Project.
CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE 2022. Measuring Ireland’s Progress 2022. Dublin, Ireland: Central Statistics Office
CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE 2023. Social Protection Expenditure in Ireland 2022. Dublin, Ireland: Central Statistics Office
DAHLBERG, L. 2021. Loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic. Taylor & Francis.
DELARUELLE, K. 2023. Migration-related inequalities in loneliness across age groups: a cross-national comparative study in Europe. European Journal of Ageing, 20, 35.
DOHERTY, A., SHERIDAN, A., CHAMBERS, D., SHEEHAN, A., POWER, I., DONOHUE, J., MOLLOY, L. & ROGAN, M. 2020. Membership of the HSE mental health promotion plan working group name role and organisation. Mental Health.
ECCLES, A. M. & QUALTER, P. 2021. Alleviating loneliness in young people–a meta‐analysis of interventions. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 26, 17-33.
EUROFOUND 2018. European Quality of Life Survey 2016. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
EUROSTAT 2024. Demography of Europe. European Commission.
FENG, X. & ASTELL-BURT, T. 2022. Lonelygenic environments: a call for research on multilevel determinants of loneliness. The Lancet Planetary Health, 6, e933-e934.
FRIED, L., PROHASKA, T., BURHOLT, V., BURNS, A., GOLDEN, J., HAWKLEY, L. C., LAWLOR, B. A., LEAVEY, G., LUBBEN, J., O’SULLIVAN, R., PERISSINOTTO, C., VAN TILBURG, T. G., TULLY, M. & VICTOR, C. 2020. A unified approach to loneliness. The Lancet, 395, 114.
GILMARTIN, M. 2024. Migration to and from Ireland, 2011 to 2024: Known Facts and Data Gaps.(MUSSI Working Paper Series 23).
GOLDMAN, N., KHANNA, D., EL ASMAR, M. L., QUALTER, P. & EL-OSTA, A. 2024. Addressing loneliness and social isolation in 52 countries: a scoping review of National policies. BMC public health, 24, 1207.
HOFSTEDE, G., HOFSTEDE, G. J. & MINKOV, M. 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, New York, USA, McGraw Hill.
HOLT-LUNSTAD, J. 2023. National health guidelines for social connection: what is the evidence in support and what might the guidelines say? Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 41-50.
HONG, J. H., NAKAMURA, J. S., BERKMAN, L. F., CHEN, F. S., SHIBA, K., CHEN, Y., KIM, E. S. & VANDERWEELE, T. J. 2023. Are loneliness and social isolation equal threats to health and well-being? An outcome-wide longitudinal approach. SSM-Population Health, 23, 101459.
JACKSON, N., TURNER, M. & PATERSON, C. 2023. What are the holistic care impacts among individuals living through the COVID‐19 pandemic in residential or community care settings? An integrative systematic review. International journal of older people nursing, 18, e12557.
JENTOFT, E. E., SANDSET, T. & HALDAR, M. 2024. Problematizing loneliness as a public health issue: an analysis of policy in the United Kingdom. Critical Policy Studies, 1-18.
LANGENKAMP, A., MUND, M. & HAWKLEY, L. C. 2023. The role of country-level characteristics in the association between loneliness and neighbourhood cohesion.
LI, L., TAEIHAGH, A. & TAN, S. Y. 2023. A scoping review of the impacts of COVID-19 physical distancing measures on vulnerable population groups. Nature communications, 14, 599.
LITWIN, H. & ERLICH, B. 2023. The short and long-term correlates of change in loneliness status: The role of epidemic control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 1-16.
LUCHETTI, M., ASCHWANDEN, D., SESKER, A. A., ZHU, X., O’SÚILLEABHÁIN, P. S., STEPHAN, Y., TERRACCIANO, A. & SUTIN, A. R. 2024. A meta-analysis of loneliness and risk of dementia using longitudinal data from> 600,000 individuals. Nature Mental Health, 1-12.
LYKES, V. A. & KEMMELMEIER, M. 2014. What predicts loneliness? Cultural difference between individualistic and collectivistic societies in Europe. Journal of Crosscultural Psychology, 45, 468-490.
MILTIADES, H. B. 2002. The social and psychological effect of an adult child’s emigration on non-immigrant Asian Indian elderly parents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 17, 33-55.
MURTHY, V. 2017. Work and the loneliness epidemic. Harvard Business Review, 9, 3-7.
NUGENT, C. 2018. Hourly earnings inequality in high-income EU countries and the UK. Dublin, Ireland: Nevin Economic Research Institute
NYQVIST, F., NYGÅRD, M. & SCHARF, T. 2019. Loneliness amongst older people in Europe: a comparative study of welfare regimes. European Journal of Ageing, 16, 133-143.
OECD. 2022. Building Trust in Public Institutions Building Trust to Reinforce Democracy Main Findings from the 2021 OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions, OECD.
OH, S. E. & CHOI, Y. J. 2024. Can Social Policy Alleviate Loneliness Among Older Adults? A Comparative Analysis of OECD Countries. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 1-18.
PARIS, B., ROPOVIK, I., SILAN, M., D’HOMBRES, B., CASABIANCA, E. & IJZERMAN, H. 2024. Evaluating Loneliness Measurements across the European Union. Annecy, France: Annecy Behavioral Science Laboratory.
PARK, J. & ZHU, Y. 2024. Mortality risk of loneliness: Culture matters. Health Psychology.
PEPLAU, L. A. & PERLMAN, D. 1982. Loneliness: A sourcebook of curent theory, research, and therapy, New York, Wiley.
RAPOLIENĖ, G. & AARTSEN, M. 2022. Lonely societies: low trust societies? Further explanations for national variations in loneliness among older Europeans. European Journal of Ageing, 19, 485-494.
RÜDEL, J. & JOLY, M.-P. 2024. Perceived loneliness: Why are Syrian refugees more lonely than other newly arrived migrants in Germany? Comparative Migration Studies, 12, 37.
SANDU, V., ZÓLYOMI, E. & LEICHSENRING, K. 2021. Addressing loneliness and social isolation among older people in Europe. Policy brief, 1-16.
SCHERMER, J. A., BRANKOVIĆ, M., ČEKRLIJA, Đ., MACDONALD, K. B., PARK, J., PAPAZOVA, E., VOLKODAV, T., ILIŠKO, D., WLODARCZYK, A. & KWIATKOWSKA, M. M. 2023. Loneliness and vertical and horizontal collectivism and individualism: A multinational study. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, 4, 100105.
SHANKAR, A., MCMUNN, A., DEMAKAKOS, P., HAMER, M. & STEPTOE, A. 2017. Social isolation and loneliness: Prospective associations with functional status in older adults. Health psychology, 36, 179.
SHEFTEL, M. G., MARGOLIS, R. & VERDERY, A. M. 2023. Life Events and Loneliness Transitions Among Middle-Aged and Older Adults Around the World. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, gbad149.
SURKALIM, D. L., LUO, M., ERES, R., GEBEL, K., VAN BUSKIRK, J., BAUMAN, A. & DING, D. 2022. The prevalence of loneliness across 113 countries: systematic review and meta-analysis. bmj, 376.
SWADER, C. S. & MORARU, A.-V. 2023. Social infrastructure and the alleviation of loneliness in Europe. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 75, 387-414.
THAPA, D. K., VISENTIN, D., KORNHABER, R. & CLEARY, M. 2018. Migration of adult children and mental health of older parents ‘left behind’: An integrative review. PloS one, 13, e0205665.
VALTORTA, N., KANAAN, M., GILBODY, S., RONZI, S. & HANRATTY, B. 2016. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for coronary heart disease and stroke: Systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observation studies. Heart, 102, 1009-1016.
WANG, F., GAO, Y., HAN, Z., YU, Y., LONG, Z., JIANG, X., WU, Y., PEI, B., CAO, Y. & YE, J. 2023. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 90 cohort studies of social isolation, loneliness and mortality. Nature Human Behaviour, 1-13.
WOODARD, M. S., MILLER, J. K., MILLER, D. J., SILVERNAIL, K. D., GUO, C., NAIR, S., AYDIN, M. D., LEMOS, A. H. D. C., DONNELLY, P. F. & KUMPIKAITE-VALIUNIENE, V. 2016. A cross-cultural examination of preferences for work attributes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31, 702-719.
ZHOU, X., YANG, F. & GAO, Y. 2023. A meta-analysis of the association between loneliness and all-cause mortality in older adults. Psychiatry Research, 115430.
ZOLOMYI, E. 2019. Peer Review on ‘Strategies for supporting social inclusions at older age’ Germany: European Commission Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.
[i] While JRC reported frequency of loneliness, Meta-Gallup reported intensity; further, while JRC used non-probabilistic sampling, Meta-Gallup used probabilistic sampling.
[ii] See https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/seanad/2024-05-01/12/