Social Prescription Interventions Addressing Social Isolation and Loneliness in Older Adults: Meta-Review Integrating On-the-Ground Resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social prescription programs represent a viable solution to linking primary care patients to nonmedical community resources for improving patient well-being. However, their success depends on the integration of patient needs with local resources. This integration could be accelerated by digital tools that use expressive ontology to organize knowledge resources, thus enabling the seamless navigation of diverse community interventions and services tailored to the needs of individual users. This infrastructure bears particular relevance for older adults, who experience a range of social needs that impact their health, including social isolation and loneliness. An essential first step in enabling knowledge mobilization and the successful implementation of social prescription initiatives to meet the social needs of older adults is to incorporate the evidence-based academic literature on what works, with on-the-ground solutions in the community. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to integrate scientific evidence with on-the-ground knowledge to build a comprehensive list of intervention terms and keywords related to reducing social isolation and loneliness in older adults. METHODS: A meta-review was conducted using a search strategy combining terms related to older adult population, social isolation and loneliness, and study types relevant to reviews using 5 databases. Review extraction included intervention characteristics, outcomes (social [eg, loneliness, social isolation, and social support] or mental health [eg, psychological well-being, depression, and anxiety]), and effectiveness (reported as consistent, mixed, or not supported). Terms related to identified intervention types were extracted from the reviewed literature as well as descriptions of corresponding community services in Montréal, Canada, available from web-based regional, municipal, and community data sources. RESULTS: The meta-review identified 11 intervention types addressing social isolation and loneliness in older adults by either increasing social interactions, providing instrumental support, promoting mental and physical well-being, or providing home and community care. Group-based social activities, support groups with educational elements, recreational activities, and training or use of information and communication technologies were the most effective in improving outcomes. Examples of most intervention types were found in community data sources. Terms derived from the literature that were the most commonly congruent with those describing existing community services were related to telehealth, recreational activities, and psychological therapy. However, several discrepancies were observed between review-based terms and those addressing the available services. CONCLUSIONS: A range of interventions found to be effective at addressing social isolation and loneliness or their impact on mental health were identified from the literature, and many of these interventions were represented in services available to older residents in Montréal, Canada. However, different terms were occasionally used to describe or categorize similar services across data sources. Establishing an efficient means of identifying and structuring such sources is important to facilitate referrals and help-seeking behaviors of older adults and for strategic planning of resources.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".