Treatment of Gender in Research on Intervention Programs Targeting Social Isolation and Loneliness Among Older Adults: Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Social isolation and loneliness have considerable health implications. Research indicates that older men are generally more susceptible to social isolation compared with women, highlighting the need to integrate gender-responsive approaches in the development and implementation of interventions for mitigating social isolation and loneliness in later life. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to conduct a review of intervention programs targeting social isolation and loneliness, focusing on gender-specific considerations. Specifically, it aims to examine the gender composition (male-to-female ratio) of participants in intervention programs and identify and analyze intervention strategies that demonstrate gender-sensitive effectiveness. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted as per the Joanna Briggs Institute manual for evidence synthesis. A comprehensive literature search, including hand searching, was conducted across 6 English-language databases, PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science, for papers and reports published in 2013-2023. The authors, country, subjects, research design, intervention method, results, and mentions of gender for each included document were presented. RESULTS: The study identified 1282 papers and reports, of which 10 were selected for analysis. Only 1 study reported a higher number of male participants compared with female ones; in contrast, all other studies included predominantly female samples. The studies assessed outcomes based on 2 indicators of social isolation, 4 indicators of loneliness, and 29 other indicators. Exercise and workshops proved effective for social isolation and loneliness, while meditation and laughter therapy were effective for loneliness. The intervention with the highest percentage of male participants (264/323, 82%) was a customized meditation program. Conversely, physical activities, social support, and community-based group health classes drew more female participants. In total, 8 studies did not mention gender in the discussion section, and none considered gender-specific issues in formulating research objectives and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Research on social isolation and loneliness has generally ignored the influence of gender. The review also indicated a gender bias in participant selection, with women markedly overrepresented in study samples. The study found that women tend to prefer interventions emphasizing conversations, shared experiences, and emotional exchange. In contrast, men showed the highest participation in a meditation program focused on self-dialogue, which required minimal interaction. Importantly, interventions aimed at promoting social interaction or participation are unlikely to succeed without consideration of gender-specific issues. Therefore, systematically identifying conditions necessary for effective interventions that target older men is crucial for guiding future research and program development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework 10.17605/OSF.IO/83JQF; hhttps://osf.io/83jqf/overview.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,029 | 0,112 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,020 | 0,016 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».