MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400734819 · doi:10.1186/s12889-024-19396-8

Tackling social disconnection: an umbrella review of RCT-based interventions targeting social isolation and loneliness

2024· review· en· W4400734819 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Hansen, Ragnhild Bang Nes, Kamila Angelika Hynek, Thomas Sevenius Nilsen, Anne Reneflot, Kim Stene‐Larsen, Ragnhild Agathe Tornes, Julia Bidonde

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNorwegian Institute of Public HealthNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsLonelinessPsychological interventionSocial isolationRandomized controlled trialMedicineMental healthSystematic reviewSocial supportPublic healthClinical psychologyMEDLINEPsychologySocial psychologyPsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Social isolation and loneliness are urgent public health concerns associated with negative physical and mental health outcomes. Understanding effective remedies is crucial in addressing these problems. This umbrella review aimed to synthesize and critically appraise scientific evidence on the effectiveness of social isolation and loneliness interventions overall and across subgroups. We focused on systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We searched seven databases (June 2022 and updated June 2023) and supplemented the search with grey literature and reference screening to identify SRs published since 2017. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment using the AMSTAR2 tool were conducted independently by author pairs, with disagreements resolved through discussion. RESULTS: We included 29 SRs, 16 with meta-analysis and 13 with narrative synthesis. All SRs focused on loneliness, with 12 additionally examining social isolation. Four SRs focused on young people, 11 on all ages, and 14 on older adults. The most frequently examined intervention types were social (social contact, social support), psychological (therapy, psychoeducation, social skills training), and digital (e.g., computer use and online support). Meta-analyses indicated small-to-moderate beneficial effects, while narrative synthesis demonstrated mixed or no effect. Social interventions for social isolation and psychological interventions for loneliness were the most promising. However, caution is warranted due to the effects' small magnitude, significant heterogeneity, and the variable quality of SRs. Digital and other interventions showed mixed or no effect; however, caution is advised in interpreting these results due to the highly diverse nature of the interventions studied. CONCLUSIONS: This overview of SRs shows small to moderate effectiveness of social interventions in reducing social isolation and psychological ones in tackling loneliness. Further rigorously conducted RCTs and SRs are needed to guide policy decisions regarding the implementation of efficacious and scalable interventions. Evaluation should focus on both preventive structural interventions and tailored mitigating strategies that address specific types and causes of 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.

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)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.194
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.194
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.015
Bibliometrics0.0220.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.286
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations37
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207