MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390697454 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056839

Impact of a peer-support programme to improve loneliness and social isolation due to COVID-19: does adding a secure, user friendly video-conference solution work better than telephone support alone? Protocol for a three-arm randomised clinical trial

2024· article· en· W4390697454 on OpenAlexaff
Jacques Lee, Louise Rose, Bjug Borgundvaag, Shelley McLeod, Donald Melady, Rohit Mohindra, Samir K. Sinha, Virginia Wesson, Lesley Wiesenfeld, Sabrina Kolker, Alex Kiss, Judy Lowthian

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreNorth York General HospitalSchwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine InstituteSinai Health SystemUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessMedicineSocial isolationPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialQuality of life (healthcare)Social distanceIntervention (counseling)Social supportIsolation (microbiology)GerontologyPsychiatryNursingPsychologySocial psychologyDiseaseCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced the implementation of physical distancing and self-isolation strategies worldwide. However, these measures have significant potential to increase social isolation and loneliness. Among older people, loneliness has increased from 40% to 70% during COVID-19. Previous research indicates loneliness is strongly associated with increased mortality. Thus, strategies to mitigate the unintended consequences of social isolation and loneliness are urgently needed. Following the Obesity-Related Behavioural Intervention Trials model for complex behavioural interventions, we describe a protocol for a three-arm randomised clinical trial to reduce social isolation and loneliness. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, outcome assessor blinded, three-arm randomised controlled trial comparing 12 weeks of: (1) the HOspitals WoRking in Unity ('HOW R U?') weekly volunteer-peer support telephone intervention; (2) 'HOW R U?' deliver using a video-conferencing solution and (3) a standard care group. The study will follow Consolidated Standard of Reporting Trials guidelines.We will recruit 24-26 volunteers who will receive a previously tested half day lay-training session that emphasises a strength-based approach and safety procedures. We will recruit 141 participants ≥70 years of age discharged from two participating emergency departments or referred from hospital family medicine, geriatric or geriatric psychiatry clinics. Eligible participants will have probable baseline loneliness (score ≥2 on the de Jong six-item loneliness scale). We will measure change in loneliness, social isolation (Lubben social network scale), mood (Geriatric Depression Score) and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) at 12-14 weeks postintervention initiation and again at 24-26 weeks. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval has been granted by the participating research ethics boards. Participants randomised to standard care will be offered their choice of telephone or video-conferencing interventions after 12 weeks. Results will be disseminated through journal publications, conference presentations, social media and through the International Federation of Emergency Medicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05228782.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.008
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0110.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0650.011

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 head0.214
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicCOVID-19 and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→