Effectiveness of a Peer-Based Intervention on Loneliness and Social Isolation of Older Chinese Immigrants in Canada: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Social isolation is a key concern for immigrant older adults. We examined the effectiveness of a peer-based intervention in reducing loneliness, social isolation, and improving psychosocial well-being with a sample of aging Chinese immigrants.Methods: Sixty community-dwelling older Chinese immigrants aged 65 and older were randomly assigned to an intervention group and a control group (n=30 each) in a randomized control parallel trial design. Intervention group participants received an eight-week peer support intervention. Twenty-four volunteers aged 48 to 76 engaged in two-on-one peer support through home visits and telephone calls to provide emotional support, problem-solving support, and community resource sharing. Social workers who are not blinded to the group assignment measured the changes of both the intervention group and the control group participants in a range of psychosocial outcomes including three primary outcomes (loneliness, social support, barriers to social participation) and five secondary outcomes (depressive symptoms, anxiety, life satisfaction, happiness, and purpose in life).Results: The 30 intervention group participants showed a statistically significant decrease in loneliness and increase in resilience when compared to the 30 control group participants. They reported fewer barriers to social participation, fewer depressive symptoms, increased life satisfaction, and happiness while no such improvements were observed in the control group.Conclusions: There is a need to further examine the use of peer-based interventions for both program effectiveness and delivery efficiency. In the era of population aging and increasing immigration, diverse aging adults can be trained to fill volunteer support roles via peer-based intervention approaches.Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN14572069, Registered 23 December 2019 – Retrospectively registered, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN14572069Funding: There are no external funding for this study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".