MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191427608 · doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01775-6

Technological interventions for loneliness and social isolation among older adults: a scoping review protocol

2021· review· en· W3191427608 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew Wister, Ian Fyffe, Eireann O’Dea

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSimon Fraser University
KeywordsLonelinessSocial isolationPsycINFOPsychological interventionMedicineGerontologyIntervention (counseling)Isolation (microbiology)Social supportMEDLINEPsychologyNursingSocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Loneliness and social isolation are prevalent public health concerns among community-dwelling older adults. One approach that is becoming an increasingly popular method of reducing levels of loneliness and social isolation among older adults is through technology-driven solutions. This protocol outlines a research trajectory whereby a scoping review will be initiated in order to illustrate and map the existing technological approaches that have been utilized to diminish levels of loneliness and social isolation among community-dwelling older adults aged 60 years or older. We will address the question: what are the most common and less used technological approaches to reduce loneliness and social isolation among community-dwelling older adults? METHODS: A scoping review of Academic Search Premier, AGEline, Global Health, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases will take place using our search terms including the following: loneliness, social isolation, older adults, elderly, Aged, Aged 80 and over, program, evaluation, trial, intervention, technology, computer, information and communication technology, internet, and robot. The initial electronic search will be supplemented by reviewing the reference lists and review articles to identify any missing studies. To meet study inclusion criteria, intervention studies had to pertain to community-dwelling adults aged 60 years or older, include technological interventions, include loneliness and/or social isolation as outcome variables, and be written in the English language. Two parallel independent assessments of study eligibility will be conducted for the title, abstract, and full-text screens. Any disagreement will be resolved by consensus and a third reviewer consulted to make a decision if consensus is not achieved initially. Finally, the amalgamation of results will be an iterative process whereby reviewers will refine the plan for presenting results after data extraction is completed so that all of the contents of the extraction may be included in the results. DISCUSSION: The information gleaned in this scoping review will be essential to understand the degree to which technological interventions influence social isolation and loneliness among older adults and identify gaps for further research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.096
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0960.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.014
Bibliometrics0.0190.015
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0070.008
Research integrity0.0110.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0940.021

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.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207