Abstract
Objectives
Thus far, some empirical studies have investigated the association between oral health and loneliness as well as social isolation. However, a systematic review and meta-analysis is lacking synthesizing this evidence. Hence, our purpose was to close this knowledge gap.
Design
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Setting and Participants
Observational studies examining the association between oral health and loneliness or social isolation were included. Disease-specific samples were excluded.
Methods
We searched three electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL), and did an additional hand search. Data extraction covered methods, sample characteristics and main findings. To evaluate study quality/risk of bias, the NIH tool was used. Study selection, data extraction and assessment of study quality were each conducted by two reviewers.
Results
Seven studies were included in our current work. Several cross-sectional studies and one longitudinal study reported an association between poorer oral health and higher loneliness as well as higher social isolation. The quality of the studies was mostly fair, with two studies of high quality. The pooled OR was 1.47 (95% CI 1.24–1.75) among the studies with adult samples.
Conclusion
Most of the included studies demonstrated an association between oral health and loneliness or social isolation. There is a lack of high quality studies on these associations; in particular, future studies should use longitudinal data to clarify the directionality between oral health and loneliness or social isolation. Prospero registration number CRD42021268116.
Electronic Supplementary Material
Supplementary material is available for this article at 10.1007/s12603-022-1806-8 and is accessible for authorized users.
Key words: Loneliness, social exclusion, social isolation, oral health, oral health-related quality of life
Introduction
The awareness of loneliness and social isolation markedly increased in the general public and even in various research areas in the past few years. This is particular true in times of the Covid-19 pandemic where social distancing is frequent. The importance of loneliness (perceived discrepancy between actual and desired social contacts (1)) and social isolation (feeling that one is left out from society (2)) can also be stressed because they are associated with chronic conditions and longevity (3, 4).
A number of studies have examined the factors contributing to loneliness and isolation covering socioeconomic factors, factors related to lifestyle, psychosocial factors and factors related to health (5, 6). Some studies have also examined the association between oral health and loneliness as well as social isolation (7–10). However, thus far, a systematic review and meta-analysis is lacking systematically synthesizing this evidence. Hence, the objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to synthesize existing research on the association between oral health, loneliness and social isolation. This knowledge may be beneficial in characterizing individuals at risk for loneliness and social isolation. In turn, from a public health perspective this is of great importance because these factors can contribute to successful ageing, general health, and mortality (3, 4, 11). Additionally, it should be noted that this knowledge is also important because oral health is modifiable (12). Such knowledge is also important for dentists. Moreover, our work may identify potential gaps in our knowledge and may therefore encourage future research.
Materials and Methods
Our work was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines (13). It is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, registration number: CRD42021268116).
All steps (search, data extraction and quality assessment) were independently conducted by two individuals (AH, BK). Discussion was used to achieve a consensus in case of disagreement (if required: a third party (HHK) was contacted).
Search strategy and selection criteria
Three databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL) were searched in October 2021. The search query for PubMed is shown in Supplementary Table 1. For example, the search strategy includes terms such as “oral health*”, “lonel*” or “social isolation”. A two-step process was used for assessment of inclusion/exclusion (1: title/abstract screening and 2: full-text screening). Moreover, we conducted a hand search.
Table 1.
Study overview
First Author (Year) | Country | Assessment of loneliness, and social Isolation | Assessment of oral health | Study Type | Sample Characteristics: Sample Descriptions Sample size Age Females in total sample | Results | Overall quality judgment |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Delgado-Angulo (2009) | Peru | assessed through eleven items regarding distributional and material, relational and participatory, and longterm perspectives of social isolation | clinical investigation regarding the number of decayed, missing and filled teeth | cross-sectional | children from Lima living with their families n=90 Age: 12 Females in total sample: 53.3% | Binary logistic regression revealed that social isolation was not significantly associated with dental caries (OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 0.94–3.43). | Fair |
Koyama (2021) | Japan, United Kingdom | Social Isolation Score (five items) | self-reported number of remaining teeth, use of dentures | cross-sectional | English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study n=124,153 Age: M: 73.8 SD: 6.1 ≥65 Females in total sample: 51.0% | According to ordered logistic regression, both denture use and a decreased number of teeth were related to increased odds of social isolation (e.g., no teeth vs. 20+: OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.15–1.27). | Good |
Lundgren (1995) | Sweden | feeling lonely (dichotomous) | self-reported dental state (four categories), symptoms from teeth or dentures and/or mouth dryness (rated on a three-point-scale) and chewing ability (rated on a three-point scale) | cross-sectional | randomly selected participants from the Gerontological and Geriatric Population Studies n=374 Age: 87–88 Females in total sample: 70.3% | Feelings of loneliness were correlated to symptoms from teeth and/or dentures (r=0.18, p<.01). | Fair |
Monteiro da Silva (1996) | United Kingdom | UCLA Loneliness Scale (20 items) | clinical diagnosis of rapidly progressive periodontitis (dichotomous) or routine chronic adult periodontitis (dichotomous) | cross-sectional | patients from a dental hospital n=150 Age: M: 40.6 SD: 6.9 Females in total sample: 66% | Loneliness was more prevalent in individuals suffering from rapidly progressive periodontitis (38.5%) than in the control group (32.0%) (p=.003). | Fair |
Olofsson (2018) | Finland, Sweden | feeling lonely (dichotomous), being socially isolated (never having any contact with neighbours or friends, dichotomous) | self-reported edentulism (not mainly having one’s own permanent teeth less, dichotomous) | cross-sectional | Gerontological Regional Database Study n=6,099 Age: 65: 40,4% 70: 24,9% 75: 19,8% 80: 14,9% Females in total sample: 53.1% | With respect to logistic regression, higher social isolation was associated with being edentulous (OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.17–1.98), whereas experiencing loneliness was not associated with being edentulous (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.85–1.44) | Fair |
Rouxel (2017) | United Kingdom | UCLA Loneliness Scale (three items) | Oral Impact on Daily Performances (ten items) | cross-sectional and longitudinal (two waves from 2006 to 2011) | English Longitudinal Study of Ageing n=6299 Age: 50–64: 54,3% 65–74: 26,2% ≥ 75: 19,5% Females in total sample: 52.4% |
Logistic regressions (cross-sectional) showed an association between lower oral health and higher loneliness (OR: 1.48, 95% CI; 1.16–1.88) Regarding multinomial logistic regression (longitudinal analysis), incident oral impact was significantly associated with the likelihood of becoming lonely (OR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.09–2.25). |
Good |
Singh (2020) | India | Patients Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System’s social isolation 8a, short form | Clinical assessment: decayed, missing, and filled tooth index; periodontal disease; and edentulousness (WHO-criteria) | Cross-sectional |
Department of Dentistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences; 3 Altenheime in Bhopal (Indien, 2017) n=421 Age: 60–70: 70,3 % 71–80: 23,0 % 81–100: 6,7 % Females in total sample: 36.3% |
Loneliness was significantly associated with decayed, missing, and filled tooth index scores ((OR 1,86; 95% CI 1,38–3,20), periodontal disease (OR 1,29; 95% CI 1,13–3,11) and edentulousness (OR 2,37; 95% CI 1,18–3,58). | Fair |
Inclusion criteria were as follows:
Cross-sectional and longitudinal observational studies investigating the association between oral health and loneliness or social isolation
Studies adequately quantifying key variables
Studies published in peer-reviewed journals (German or English language).
Contrary, studies were excluded when they exclusively used samples with a specific disorder (e.g., individuals with anxiety). Studies based on samples exclusively restricted to individuals with a specific illness were excluded because we were interested in studies which are widely generalizable and not limited to specific illnesses. However, it is worth noting that we included observational studies which also include but are not limited to individuals with specific illnesses.
No restrictions were applied regarding gender, ethnicity or country. Furthermore, samples of any age category were included. We did a pretest (sample of 100 titles/abstracts) before final eligibility criteria. Nevertheless, eligibility criteria did not change.
Data extraction and analysis
One reviewer (BK) conducted the data extraction. It was cross-checked by a second reviewer (AH). Extraction of the data included study design, operationalization of key variables, describing the sample and main findings (association with oral health and loneliness/social isolation). In the results section, the key findings are displayed separated by loneliness and social isolation.
Quality assessment
The NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies (14) was used to evaluate the quality of the studies included. It is a well-known and widely-established tool when assessing the quality of observational studies.
Meta-analysis
It should be noted that we additionally conducted a random-effects meta-analysis. In our main model, we only excluded one study referring to children (and thus focused on adult samples). In additional analysis, we restricted our meta-analysis to studies which were rated as “good”. In line with given recommendations, heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I2 statistic (I2 values between 25% to 50%: low; 50% to 75%: moderate; 75% or more: high heterogeneity (Higgins et al., 2003). Stata 16.1 was used to conduct meta-analysis.
Results
Overview: included studies
The selection process of the studies is shown in Figure 1 (flow chart (15)). Seven studies satisfied our eligibility criteria and were thus included in our current work (7–10, 16–18).
Figure 1.
Flow chart
From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
An overview is provided in Table 1 (including key findings). If possible, results of adjusted regressions are shown.
Data came from Europe (n=6 samples, with: United Kingdom, n=3; Sweden, n=2; Finland, n=1), Asia (Japan, n=1; India, n=1) and South America (Peru, n=1).
One study used data from both United Kingdom and Japan (7) and a second study used data from Finland and Sweden (8). Six out of the seven studies solely used cross-sectional data. Only one study used both cross-sectional and longitudinal data (two waves from 2006 and 2011) (9). While the studies from Europe (and Japan) mainly used data from large, representative samples, the other studies used more specific samples (e.g., patients from a dental hospital (18)). The sample size varied from 90 (16) to 124,153 individuals (7). There was some variety in the assessment of loneliness or social isolation. For example, two studies used different versions of the UCLA tools to quantify loneliness, whereas two studies used a single-item to quantify loneliness. Similarly, there was a large variety in the operationalization of oral health (e.g., self-reported number of remaining teeth or the tool “Oral Impact on Daily Performances”). Five studies examined older adults, whereas one study examined children aged 12 years (16) and one study examined middle-aged adults (18). The proportion of women ranged from 36% to 70% (with most of the studies having 50% to 60% female participants). Only one study examined the association between oral health and both loneliness and social isolation (8). Further details are given in Table 1.
Oral health and loneliness
In sum, n=5 studies examined the association between oral health and loneliness (8–10, 17, 18). Four of those studies were solely cross-sectional (8, 10, 17, 18), whereas one study performed both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses (9). Three out of the four cross-sectional studies showed an association between lower oral health and higher loneliness, whereas Olofsson et al. did not identify such an association in multiple regression analysis (also adjusting for social isolation) (8). It should be noted that Olofsson found a significant bivariate association between lower oral health and higher loneliness (8). Only Rouxel et al. (9) treated loneliness as dependent variable, whereas the other studies using regression analysis treated oral health as dependent variable. They showed that lower oral health was associated with higher loneliness both cross-sectionally and longitudinally (9). None of the studies examined gender differences in the association between oral health and loneliness.
Oral health and social isolation
In sum, n=3 cross-sectional studies examined the association between oral health and social isolation (7, 8, 16). Two out of the three studies found an association between low oral health and high social isolation among older adults (7, 8), whereas one study did not find such an association among children in Peru (16). Two studies treated social isolation as independent variable (8, 16), whereas one study treated social isolation as outcome measure (7). None of the three studies examined gender differences in the association between oral health and social isolation. Longitudinal studies are missing investigating the association between oral health and social isolation.
Quality assessment
In Table 2, the quality assessment is shown. While some criteria were fulfilled by all studies (e.g., objective clearly stated), other criteria were rarely satisfied (e.g., sufficient response rate). The general quality of the included studies was mainly fair. More precisely, five studies were rated as ‘fair’, whereas two studies were rated as ‘good’. None of the studies were rated as ‘poor’.
Table 2.
Quality assessment
Questions | Studies | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Delgado-Angulo (2009) | Koyama (2021) | Lundgren (1995) | Monteiro da Silva (1996) | Olofsson (2018) | Rouxel (2017) | Singh (2020) | |
1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated? | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined? | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
3. Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%? | yes (98.9%) | not reported | yes (82%) | not reported | yes (63.9%) | not reported | not reported |
4. Were all the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same time period)? Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study prespecified and applied uniformly to all participants? | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
5. Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided? | yes | no | no | no | no | no | yes |
6. For the analyses in this paper, were the exposure(s) of interest measured prior to the outcome(s) being measured? (if not prospective should be answered as ‘no’, even is exposure predated outcome) | no (cross-sectional) | no (cross-sectional) | no (cross-sectional) | no (cross-sectional) | no (cross-sectional) | No (simultaneously) | no (cross-sectional) |
7. Was the timeframe sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between exposure and outcome if it existed? | no (cross-sectional) | no (cross-sectional) | no (cross-sectional) | no (cross-sectional) | no (cross-sectional) | yes | no (cross-sectional) |
8. For exposures that can vary in amount or level, did the study examine different levels of the exposure as related to the outcome (e.g., categories of exposure, or exposure measured as continuous variable)? | continous | categorical | dichotomous | dichotomous | dichotomous | dichotomous | continous |
9. Were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
10. Was the exposure(s) assessed more than once over time? | no | no | no | no | no | yes | no |
11. Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
12. Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less? | not applicable | not applicable | not applicable | not applicable | not applicable | no | not applicable |
13. Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)? | yes | yes | no | no | yes | yes | yes |
Overall quality judgement | Fair | Good | Fair | Fair | Fair | Good | Fair |
Meta-analysis
Our meta-analysis (based on six studies which were conducted among adult samples) showed that the pooled OR was 1.47 (95% CI: 1.24–1.75); with social isolation as outcome: OR = 1.31 (1.06–1.61), with loneliness as outcome: OR = 1.63 (1.36–1.95). We identified moderate heterogeneity across these studies (P=60.3%). Please see Supplementary File 2 for further details. Based on the two studies which were rated as ‘good’, an additional meta-analysis was conducted. Again, moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 61.0%) across these two studies were identified. The pooled OR was 1.29 (95% CI: 1.07–1.55). Please see Supplementary File 3 for further details.
Discussion
The purpose of our systematic review was to give an overview of empirical studies investigating the association between oral health and loneliness as well as social isolation. In total, seven studies were included in our review. Several cross-sectional studies and one longitudinal study reported an association between poorer oral health and higher loneliness as well as higher social isolation. The quality of the studies was mostly fair, with two studies of high quality. Moreover, a metaanalysis was conducted. The pooled OR was 1.47 (95% CI: 1.24–1.75) among the studies with adult samples.
The question arises why oral health is linked to loneliness and social isolation. A possible explanation may be that oral health is positively associated with mental health (19) which in turn is associated with loneliness and social isolation (20). Furthermore, previous research showed an associated between oral health and the status of being homebound - which could contribute to isolation or loneliness (21). Additionally, feelings of shame and feelings of stigmatization because of low oral health (which may be seen as a proxy for a low socio-economic status) may diminish the self-worth and contentment of individuals (22). Thus, individuals may also report feelings of isolation and loneliness (23). Other ways to explain such an association between oral health and loneliness and social isolation are as follows: Individuals with a low oral health may think that they are worse off (in terms of health) compared to other individuals in their age group. Such negative health comparisons may result in isolation - as previously shown (24). Another explanation may be that a low oral health may decrease overall health and well-being (25) which in turn can affect loneliness and isolation (26).
It should be noted that the comparability between the studies is somewhat restricted, e.g. due to differences in the age groups, and the heterogeneity in the assessment of the main variables (e.g., assessment of loneliness or oral health). In contrast, some factors are comparable between the studies: Most of the studies used a cross-sectional design. Furthermore, most of the existing studies used data from older adults living in European countries.
Several gaps in our knowledge were identified in our work which may guide future research. First, longitudinal studies are urgently needed to clarify the directionality between oral health and loneliness as well as social isolation. Second, more studies are required to clarify the association between oral health and loneliness or social isolation among children/adolescents as well as among young and middle-aged adults. Third, studies from other regions are needed (e.g., North America or Africa). Fourth, moderating (e.g., gender) and mediating factors (e.g., general self-esteem) in the association between oral health and loneliness and social isolation should be further studied.
Some strengths and limitations of our current work are worth noting. We performed the first systematic review and meta-analysis examining the association between oral health and loneliness as well as social isolation. Moreover, key steps (study selection, data extraction and evaluation of the quality) were performed by two reviewers. Additionally, a meta-analysis was conducted. While the decision to include only articles published in peer-reviewed journals ensures a certain quality of the studies, it also excludes potential studies of interest. Similarly, due to language restrictions, some studies of interest might be excluded.
Conclusions
Most of the included studies demonstrated an association between oral health and loneliness as well as social isolation. There is a lack of high quality studies on these associations; in particular, future studies should use longitudinal data to clarify the directionality between oral health and loneliness or social isolation.
Electronic supplementary material
Supplementary Table 1. Search strategy (PubMed).
Supplementary material, approximately 95.0 KB.
Supplementary material, approximately 92.9 KB.
Acknowledgments
None.
Author Contributions: The study concept was developed by A.H., B.K. and H.-H.K. The manuscript was drafted by A.H. and critically revised by B.K. and H.-H.K. The search strategy was developed by A.H. and H.-H.K. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by A.H. and B.K., with H.-H.K. as a third party in case of disagreements. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Ethics: Not applicable.
Conflict of interest: AH has nothing to disclose. BK has nothing to disclose. HHK has nothing to disclose.
Footnotes
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
References
- 1.Wenger GC, Davies R, Shahtahmasebi S, Scott A. Social isolation and loneliness in old age: review and model refinement. Ageing & Society. 1996;16(3):333–58. doi: 10.1017/S0144686X00003457. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Bude H, Lantermann E-D. Soziale Exklusion und Exklusionsempfinden. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. 2006;58(2):233–52. doi: 10.1007/s11575-006-0054-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Baker M, Harris T, Stephenson D. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on psychological science. 2015;10(2):227–37. doi: 10.1177/1745691614568352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Luanaigh C, Lawlor BA. Loneliness and the health of older people. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry: A journal of the psychiatry of late life and allied sciences. 2008;23(12):1213–21. doi: 10.1002/gps.2054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Dahlberg L, McKee KJ, Frank A, Naseer M. A systematic review of longitudinal risk factors for loneliness in older adults. Aging & Mental Health. 2021:1–25; DOI: 10.1080/13607863.2021.1876638. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 6.Ejiri M, Kawai H, Ishii K, Oka K, Obuchi S. Predictors of older adults’ objectively measured social isolation: A systematic review of observational studies. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2021:104357; DOI: 10.1016/j.archger.2021.104357. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 7.Koyama S, Saito M, Cable N, Ikeda T, Tsuji T, Noguchi T, et al. Examining the associations between oral health and social isolation: A cross-national comparative study between Japan and England. Soc Sci Med. 2021;277:113895. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113895. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Olofsson H, Ulander EL, Gustafson Y, Hörnsten C. Association between socioeconomic and health factors and edentulism in people aged 65 and older - a population-based survey. Scand J Public Health. 2018;46(7):690–8. doi: 10.1177/1403494817717406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Rouxel P, Heilmann A, Demakakos P, Aida J, Tsakos G, Watt RG. Oral health-related quality of life and loneliness among older adults. Eur J Ageing. 2017;14(2):101–9. doi: 10.1007/s10433-016-0392-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Singh A, Purohit BM, Taneja S. Loneliness and disability as predictors of oral diseases among 2 groups of older adults in central India. J Am Dent Assoc. 2020;151(6):427–37. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2020.02.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kawai C, Sasaki M. Adjustment to spousal bereavement and successful aging: A 16-year longitudinal study. Shinrigaku Kenkyu: The Japanese Journal of Psychology. 2004;75(1):49–58. doi: 10.4992/jjpsy.75.49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Borgnakke WS. Modifiable risk factors for periodontitis and diabetes. Current Oral Health Reports. 2016;3(3):254–69. doi: 10.1007/s40496-016-0099-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Bmj. 2021;372; DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 14.Health NIo. National Heart Lung, and Blood Institute. Study quality assessment tools. 2018.
- 15.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. The PG. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLOS Medicine. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Delgado-Angulo EK, Hobdell MH, Bernabé E. Poverty, social exclusion and dental caries of 12-year-old children: a cross-sectional study in Lima, Peru. BMC Oral Health. 2009;9:16. doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-9-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Lundgren M, Osterberg T, Emilson G, Steen B. Oral complaints and utilization of dental services in relation to general health factors in a 88-year-old Swedish population. Gerodontology. 1995;12(12):81–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-2358.1995.tb00135.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Monteiro da Silva AM, Oakley DA, Newman HN, Nohl FS, Lloyd HM. Psychosocial factors and adult onset rapidly progressive periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol. 1996;23(8):789–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1996.tb00611.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Okoro CA, Strine TW, Eke PI, Dhingra SS, Balluz LS. The association between depression and anxiety and use of oral health services and tooth loss. Community dentistry and oral epidemiology. 2012;40(2):134–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2011.00637.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Cacioppo JT, Hughes ME, Waite LJ, Hawkley LC, Thisted RA. Loneliness as a specific risk factor for depressive symptoms: cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Psychology and aging. 2006;21(1):140. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.21.1.140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Koyama S, Aida J, Kondo K, Yamamoto T, Saito M, Ohtsuka R, et al. Does poor dental health predict becoming homebound among older Japanese? BMC Oral Health. 2016;16(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12903-016-0209-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Benyamini Y, Leventhal H, Leventhal EA. Self-rated oral health as an independent predictor of self-rated general health, self-esteem and life satisfaction. Social science & medicine. 2004;59(5):1109–16. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.12.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Heatherton TF, Wyland CL. Assessing self-esteem. In: Lopez SJ, Snyder CR, editors. Positive psychological assessment: A handbook o f models and measures. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2003. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Hajek A, König H-H. Self-efficacy moderates the relationship between health comparisons and social exclusion: results of the German Ageing Survey. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):1–7. doi: 10.1186/s12955-017-0831-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Treadwell HM, Formicola AJ. Improving the oral health of prisoners to improve overall health and well-being. American journal of public health. 2008;98(Supplement_1):S171–S2. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.98.Supplement_1.S171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Hajek A, König H-H. Which factors contribute to loneliness among older Europeans? Findings from the survey of health, ageing and retirement in Europe: determinants of loneliness. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics. 2020;89:104080. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2020.104080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary Table 1. Search strategy (PubMed).
Supplementary material, approximately 95.0 KB.
Supplementary material, approximately 92.9 KB.