Effects of social isolation, loneliness and frailty on health outcomes and their possible mediators and moderators in community-dwelling older adults: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Over the past decade, the quantity and quality of social relationships in later life have become one of the main challenges facing an aging society. Our aims were to map and synthesize the literature addressing the effects of loneliness, three aspects of social isolation, including social networks, social support, and social participation, and frailty on health outcomes and their mediators and moderators among older adults. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review and searched for articles published in English and French from 2001 up to 2019 in the following databases: Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, Web of Science and PsycINFO. RESULTS: Our database search initially resulted in 4001 articles of which 1832 were excluded; 26 were eligible. Most of the included studies revealed associations between social isolation, loneliness and frailty. The majority of studies found evidence of associations between frailty and their adverse outcomes; however, only few studies found a relationship between social isolation and health outcomes. In spite of the established link between frailty and adverse outcomes, no study looked at how social isolation and loneliness can alter adverse outcomes of frailty. No study investigated the role of frailty or social isolation and loneliness as a mediator on the pathway related to health. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is limited in examining the role of frailty or social isolation and loneliness as a moderator and mediator. Longitudinal research combining both social isolation and loneliness are warranted to explore whether social isolation or loneliness has more deleterious effects on frailty and health outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".