Psychological interventions for loneliness and social isolation among older adults during medical pandemics: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There is little research conducted to systematically synthesize the evidence on psychological interventions for social isolation and loneliness among older adults during medical pandemics. This systematic review aims to address this information gap and provides guidance for planning and implementing interventions to prevent and reduce loneliness and social isolation for older adults, especially during medical pandemics. METHODS: Four electronic databases (EMBASE, PsychoInfo, Medline and Web of Science) and grey literature from 1 January 2000 to 13 September 2022 were searched for eligible studies on loneliness and social isolation. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment on key study characteristics were conducted independently by two researchers. Both qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis were used. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 3,116 titles. Of the 215 full texts reviewed, 12 intervention articles targeting loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic met the inclusion criteria. No studies were found concerning intervention with respect to social isolation. Overall, interventions targeting social skills and the elimination of negativities effectively alleviated the feelings of loneliness in the older population. However, they had only short-term effects. CONCLUSION: This review systematically summarised the key characteristics and the effectiveness of existing interventions addressing loneliness in older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future interventions should focus on social skills and eliminating negativities and be tailored to the needs and characteristics of older people. Repeated larger-scale randomized controlled trials and long-term effectiveness evaluations on this topic are warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".