1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Interventions for loneliness in older adults: a systematic review of reviews

      systematic-review
      * , ,
      Frontiers in Public Health
      Frontiers Media S.A.
      aging, older adults, loneliness, social isolation, systematic review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Loneliness in older persons is a major risk factor for adverse health outcomes. Before the COVID-19 pandemic led to unprecedented isolation and hampered programs aimed at preventing or reducing loneliness, many interventions were developed and evaluated. However, previous reviews provide limited or conflicting summaries of intervention effectiveness. This systematic review aimed to assess previous review quality and bias, as well as to summarize key findings into an overarching narrative on intervention efficacy. The authors searched nine electronic databases and indices to identify systematic reviews of interventions to reduce loneliness in older people prior to the COVID-19 pandemic; 6,925 records were found initially. Of these, 19 reviews met inclusion criteria; these encompassed 101 unique primary intervention studies that varied in research design, sample size, intervention setting, and measures of loneliness across 21 nations. While 42% of reviews had minimal risk of bias, only 8% of primary studies appraised similarly. Among the 101 unique articles reviewed, 63% of tested interventions were deemed by article author(s) as effective or partially effective. Generally, interventions that included animals, psychological therapies, and skill-building activities were more successful than interventions focused on social facilitation or health promotion. However, interventions that targeted multiple objectives aimed at reducing loneliness (e.g., improving social skills, enhancing social support, increasing social opportunities, and changing maladaptive social cognition) were more effective than single-objective interventions. Future programs should incorporate multiple approaches, and these interventions should be rigorously tested.

          Related collections

          Most cited references174

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

          The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): reliability, validity, and factor structure.

              D. Russell (1996)
              In this article I evaluated the psychometric properties of the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3). Using data from prior studies of college students, nurses, teachers, and the elderly, analyses of the reliability, validity, and factor structure of this new version of the UCLA Loneliness Scale were conducted. Results indicated that the measure was highly reliable, both in terms of internal consistency (coefficient alpha ranging from .89 to .94) and test-retest reliability over a 1-year period (r = .73). Convergent validity for the scale was indicated by significant correlations with other measures of loneliness. Construct validity was supported by significant relations with measures of the adequacy of the individual's interpersonal relationships, and by correlations between loneliness and measures of health and well-being. Confirmatory factor analyses indicated that a model incorporating a global bipolar loneliness factor along with two method factor reflecting direction of item wording provided a very good fit to the data across samples. Implications of these results for future measurement research on loneliness are discussed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1720786/overviewRole: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/182290/overviewRole: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                Journal
                Front Public Health
                Front Public Health
                Front. Public Health
                Frontiers in Public Health
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-2565
                18 July 2024
                2024
                : 12
                : 1427605
                Affiliations
                Office of Public Health Studies, Thompson School of Social Work & Public Health, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa , Honolulu, HI, United States
                Author notes

                Edited by: Lenard Kaye, University of Maine, United States

                Reviewed by: Chakra Budhathoki, Johns Hopkins University, United States

                Antonio Guaita, Fondazione Golgi Cenci, Italy

                *Correspondence: Uday Patil, uday@ 123456hawaii.edu
                Article
                10.3389/fpubh.2024.1427605
                11291379
                39091527
                6ef6e430-e829-476e-96e9-5b6da2c6d2cc
                Copyright © 2024 Patil and Braun.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 04 May 2024
                : 05 July 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 3, Equations: 0, References: 186, Pages: 18, Words: 12021
                Funding
                The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Although this study was not conducted under a specific funding mechanism, the senior author is funded to support junior faculty through grant number 2U54MD007601–36 from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities and grant number U54GM138062 from the National Institutes of General Medical Sciences.
                Categories
                Public Health
                Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                Aging and Public Health

                aging,older adults,loneliness,social isolation,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article