MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interventions Associated With Reduced Loneliness and Social Isolation in Older Adults

2022· review· en· W4306663560 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

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta HealthAlberta Health ServicesMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessPsychological interventionPsychosocialSocial isolationCINAHLClinical psychologyRandomized controlled trialSocial supportPsychologyMeta-analysisMedicineGerontologyPsychiatryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Loneliness and social isolation are public health concerns faced by older adults due to physical, cognitive, and psychosocial changes that develop with aging. Loneliness and social isolation are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Objective: To evaluate interventions, targeting older adults, associated with a reduction in loneliness and social isolation. Data Sources: OVID, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Embase, PsychINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception to March 2020. Study Selection: Peer-reviewed randomized clinical trials measuring loneliness and social isolation or support in adults aged 65 years or older. Only English language articles were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects models were performed to pool the overall effect size by intervention. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated with the I2 statistic and by estimating prediction intervals. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to September 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quantitative measures of loneliness, social isolation, or social support based on an effect size of standardized mean differences. Results: Seventy studies were included in the systematic review (8259 participants); 44 studies were included in the loneliness meta-analysis (33 in the community with 3535 participants; 11 in long-term care with 1057 participants), with participants' ages ranging from 55 to 100 years. Study sizes ranged from 8 to 741 participants. Interventions included animal therapy, psychotherapy or cognitive behavioral therapy, multicomponent, counseling, exercise, music therapy, occupational therapy, reminiscence therapy, social interventions, and technological interventions. Most interventions had a small effect size. Animal therapy in long-term care, when accounting for studies with no active controls, had the largest effect size on loneliness reduction (-1.86; 95% CI, -3.14 to -0.59; I2 = 86%) followed by technological interventions (videoconferencing) in long-term care (-1.40; 95% CI, -2.37 to -0.44; I2 = 70%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, animal therapy and technology in long-term care had large effect sizes, but also high heterogeneity, so the effect size's magnitude should be interpreted with caution. The small number of studies per intervention limits conclusions on sources of heterogeneity. Overall quality of evidence was very low. Future studies should consider measures of social isolation in long-term care and identify the contextual components that are associated with a reduction in loneliness.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.313 · 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