Men and loneliness in the Covid‐19 pandemic: Insights from an interview study with UK‐based men

  1. John Ratcliffe
  2. Mona Kanaan
  3. Paul Galdas

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1111/hsc.13746
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.30.21259536: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Participants were contacted via a ‘gatekeeper’ in the organisations listed above, and gave written consent via email.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    2.2 Data collection: Interviews were conducted remotely, by John Ratcliffe, via video call (Google hangouts, Zoom) or telephone, in an enclosed room using a headset.
    Google
    suggested: (Google, RRID:SCR_017097)
    Coding was conducted in NVivo (2020), in six stages:
    NVivo
    suggested: (NVivo, RRID:SCR_014802)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    4.1 Strengths and limitations: This study cannot gauge the scale of these themes across societies (Bryman, 2006), and it is difficult to identify precisely whether and how these findings are gendered in this data. The participants were fairly diverse, yet none were black, single parents, or either under 20 or over 71 years old. Though participants suggested numerous ways the pandemic was ‘easier for some than others’, these were often vague assertions, usually related to groups other than themselves, therefore this requires more focused research. The focus on semantic themes may also limit insight (Braun and Clarke, 2006). No participant had experienced Covid-19, and only one participant mentioned a person they knew who had. As such, the study offers limited insight to people with lived experience of the virus, particularly bereaved people who may be at risk of loneliness (Stroebe and Schut, 2020). The study is unable to balance people’s needs in relation to loneliness against the need to avoid transmission of SARS-COV-2. Support bubbles, outdoor exercise, attention from (adult) children, and involvement in local communities, were constructed as helpful to loneliness, yet involve social contact that may increase transmission. Conversely, it is impossible to derive from this data whether, when, and to what extent, anxiety of SARS-COV-2 is rational emotional response, or a cognitive problem. By focusing on semantic themes, this study was able to provide a timely addition to the...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.06.30.21259536v1 on medRxiv