MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Technological interventions to reduce loneliness and social isolation among community-living older adults: A scoping review

2021· review· en· W3211363640 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGerontechnology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessSocial isolationPsychological interventionGerontologyIsolation (microbiology)Aging in placeIndependent livingPsychologyMedicineSocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Loneliness and social isolation are recognized as significant challenges affecting older adults living in the community. In recent years, there has been an increase in the use of technological interventions to address these issues. Objective: The primary objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive overview of the types of technological interventions that have been developed to reduce loneliness and/or social isolation for community-dwelling older adults. The secondary objective is to compare via mapping the technological intervention article characteristics in terms of date of publication, country of publication, study design, sample characteristics, loneliness/ social isolation measure, and efficacy/support for the intervention. Method: Using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology (Joanna Briggs Institute, 2011) and the PRISMA extension for systematic/scoping reviews, a scoping review of seven academic databases (Academic Search Premier, Ageline, Global Health, MEDLINE, PsycIN-FO, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov) was conducted. Results: This scoping review identified 26 technological approaches to reducing loneliness and social isolation that met our criteria. We found three groupings; (1) computer and tablet-based competence training; (2) health-oriented technical interventions; and 3) Video games and animatronic pets interventions. The majority of technological interventions (15 out of 26) were effective in demonstrating support for reductions in loneliness and/or social isolation among older adults. Issues of accessibility, technology literacy, and complexity of the intervention were found to act as barriers to uptake. Conclusion: A variety of technologies have been employed to reduce social and loneliness amongst older adults, with a growing body of evidence in support of technologydriven interventions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.325 · 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