Impact of social phone programs on loneliness and mood in older adults: a mixed methods systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this mixed methods review is to examine the effectiveness and experience of social phone programs on loneliness and/or mood in community-dwelling older adults. INTRODUCTION: There is a large and growing older adult population that is burdened with loneliness. Loneliness affects both physical and mental health, and it is, therefore, imperative to examine ways of mitigating experiences of loneliness. Social phone programs are being offered through multiple organizations as a way of increasing socialization and decreasing loneliness in older adults. There is a need to examine existing data on social phone programs to determine their effectiveness and optimize their implementation. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Included studies will be original qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods research, along with gray literature, examining the use of social phone programs to address loneliness and/or mood in older adults. METHODS: A convergent segregated mixed methods approach will be used, in line with the JBI methodology for mixed methods reviews. Articles will be searched in selected databases, sources of clinical trials, and gray literature. No limits have been set for language or date of publication. Two team members will select studies through title and abstract screening and then full-text screening. Critical appraisal will be performed in accordance with the standard JBI critical assessment tools, although no articles will be excluded based on this appraisal. Quantitative articles will be synthesized using meta-analysis, while a process of meta-aggregation will be used for qualitative articles. The findings will be integrated into a final report. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42022335119.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".