MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411385654 · doi:10.12775/jehs.2025.82.60434

Digital health interventions in reducing loneliness and improving mental health in older adults - a literature review

2025· review· en· W4411385654 on OpenAlexaff
Jakub Kołacz, Patrycja Oleś, Marcin Kwiatkowski, Tomasz Koziński, Marta Donderska, Paulina Bochniak, Mateusz Bryła, Zofia Bryła, Monika Spaczyńska-Kwiatkowska, Tomasz Włoch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education Health and Sport · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessMental healthPsychological interventionGerontologyPsychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Loneliness remains a concerning health issue, especially among the older population. It leads to numerous negative psychological and physiological negative health outcomes. Digital health interventions have presented themselves as promising strategies for mitigating loneliness and improving mental health in this demographic group. Aim of the study: This review aims to evaluate existing literature on select digital health interventions in mitigating loneliness and improving mental well-being in the older population. We aimed to present strengths, limitations and obstacles to adoption of these types of interventions, while providing insights into areas of research which could be more thoroughly explored. Materials and methods: To write this article, databases such as Scopus, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched using the key terms to find relevant information. Studies published between 2009 and 2025 were included. Conclusions: Digital health interventions, including mHealth apps, virtual reality systems (VR), AI (artificial intelligence) chatbots, companion robots, and video communication platforms have shown potential of mitigating loneliness among older adults. However, the evidence is mixed due to differences in methods of measurement, short duration of follow-up research and obstacles to adoption such as digital literacy, technical barriers and ethical considerations. To fully determine their effectiveness, future studies should implement standardized measurement of outcomes, explore personalized interventions and mitigate the barriers to adoption. Possible risks of overreliance, personal data safety, and discouragement of human relations need to be addressed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.396 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education Health and SportSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207