IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v232y2019icp470-472.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perspectives on the non-replication of associations of “loneliness” with systolic blood pressure and HbAlc: Methodological and mental health considerations a commentary on Das (2018)

Author

Listed:
  • Jorgensen, Randall S.

Abstract

Das (2018) presents a critique of the loneliness literature in terms of design (viz., small samples and the existence of only one longitudinal study) and potentially flawed data analyses that do not take into account clustering factors such as where the participants live. With respect to loneliness, Das's analysis of two large longitudinal population studies showed neither evidence of a high prevalence nor associations with the cardiometabolic measures, thereby providing additional questions regarding the role of loneliness in the causal chain of health and well-being. If questions concerning what loneliness is and its causal role in the chain of biological, personological, social, and cultural health and well-being are not clearly elucidated, then misconceptions of the role of loneliness construct can arise. Although Das indicates that differences in the assessment of loneliness may contribute to the failure to replicate associations, other individual differences and methodological factors may confound interpretation of the causal role of loneliness; these points warrant further comment, which is the focus of this commentary.

Suggested Citation

  • Jorgensen, Randall S., 2019. "Perspectives on the non-replication of associations of “loneliness” with systolic blood pressure and HbAlc: Methodological and mental health considerations a commentary on Das (2018)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 470-472.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:232:y:2019:i:c:p:470-472
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.12.039
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953618307287
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.12.039?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:232:y:2019:i:c:p:470-472. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.