Increasing prosocial behaviour in community-dwelling older adults through phone visiting programs: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults represent 17.5% of the Canadian population and experience high rates of loneliness and social isolation. Loneliness impacts quality of life, mental health, physical health, and mortality rates. There is a need to examine ways to reduce loneliness and social isolation. Phone visiting programs may provide partial solutions. Several organizations provide phone visiting programs for older adults yet little research has been done to evaluate the effectiveness of phone visiting on loneliness and /or mood or to study the optimal implementation of phone visiting programs. Objectives The objectives of this systematic review were to explore information pertaining to the optimal implementation of phone call programs for community-dwelling older adults and synthesize existing studies that examined the impact of phone visiting programs on mood and/or loneliness. Methods The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for mixed methods systematic review. A peer reviewed search strategy was created by the librarian team member. Selection Criteria All original qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods published articles, theses, and dissertations were included in any language. Population- Older adults 60 years and over living in the community. Studies were excluded for those older adults in hospital or receiving 24-hour care. Intervention/Phenomenon of Interest- The particular research being addressed was one-on-one voice-only phone visiting programs for socialization. Outcomes- The research specifically addressed the experience of participating in a phone visiting program and/or loneliness, and/or mood. Study Selection After duplicate articles were removed each title and abstract was reviewed by two team members for inclusion/exclusion. All included articles at title and abstract screening were read in full by two team members to determine inclusion/exclusion. Results A total of 8741 records were found resulting in 11 articles being included after exclusion criteria were applied. Quantitative Meta-analysis Upon meta-analysis a statistically significant reduction in loneliness was found. Positive observed effects of phone programs on reducing depression were found. However, true effects were inconclusive. There were not enough studies that examined stress or anxiety to show any significant results. Qualitative Meta-Aggregation Three qualitative studies were found all showed positive findings which resulted in three themes: 1) Makes You Feel Better, 2) Needing Connection (Knowing Someone is Out There, Need for Relationships), and 3) Beyond the Phone Call (Getting Over a Hurdle, Finding Meaning). Implications More research is needed to strengthen the findings of this systematic review. There is a need to expand phone visiting programs and create best practice documents and orientation packages to optimize existing phone visiting programs and establish new ones. Further, we need to establish an information sharing platform to connect researchers and leaders to put research into practice. Conclusion There is evidence to support the use of phone visiting programs to reduce loneliness, make older adults feel better and more connected, and this continues into other aspects of their lives. More research is needed to strengthen the findings.
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".