If you look at the figure with household size, you'll see that this is not a trope but rather an empirical pattern. As with all such patterns, especially where the assessment is based on a mean, it is not absolute. People will far above/below, some moreso than others. But the pattern does exist.

Living alone in and of itself is not. An aging population living alone becomes a concern for health and safety, and on average, excessive time alone is associated with poorer well-being, cognitive decline, etc. Many exceptions of course, but it becomes one when highly concentrated on at-risk groups.

Note: Due to variations in local privacy regulations, coverage is not necessarily representative for all countries (e.g., we have a lot of Swedish people in the sample, despite how it might look on the map).

Freely available: rdcu.be/egrXI

plus.columbia.edu/content/foun...

Andi, to be clear, that was not interpreting focus groups as universally useful. But that some policymakers working on other matters, like something that may be unique to a single town or group, need focus group input in a way an RCT can’t inform. Not to replace RCTs in all instances.

Maybe not over-invested, but incorrectly assumed a universal value proposition. The most fascinating response was that RCTs don't inform policies on things like having sign language interpreters available in courtrooms or how many people should receive severe weather alerts.

(The increase may have been 5% or another number to be published. On further reading of the linked material, it seems like the increase is confirmed but more details are coming.)