Informal caregiving for adults, loneliness and social isolation: a study protocol for a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Some empirical studies have identified an association between informal caregiving for adults and loneliness or social isolation. However, there is a lack of a review systematically synthesising empirical studies that have examined these associations. Hence, the aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of evidence from observational studies.Methods and analysis
Three electronic databases (Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL) will be searched (presumably in May 2021), and reference lists of included studies will be searched manually. Cross-sectional and longitudinal observational studies examining the association between informal caregiving for adults and loneliness or social isolation will be included. Studies focusing on grandchildren care or private care for chronically ill children will be excluded. Data extraction will include information related to study design, definition and measurement of informal caregiving, loneliness and social isolation, sample characteristics, statistical analysis and main results. The quality of the studies will be evaluated using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Two reviewers will perform the selection of studies, data extraction and assessment of study quality. Figures and tables will be used to summarise and report results. A narrative summary of the findings will be provided. If data permit, a meta-analysis will be conducted.Ethics and dissemination
No primary data will be collected. Therefore, approval by an ethics committee is not required. We plan to publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration number
CRD42020193099.
SUBMITTER: Hajek A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8098962 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionSocial isolation and loneliness affect approximately one-third to one-half of the elderly population and have a negative impact on their physical and mental health. Group-based interventions where facilitators are well trained and where the elderly are actively engaged in their development seem to be more effective, but conclusions have been limited by weak study designs. We aim to conduct a systematic review to assess the effectiveness of health promotion interventions on social isolation or loneliness in older people.Methods and analysisA systematic review was conducted in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, LILACS, OpenGrey and the Cochrane Library on peer-reviewed studies and doctoral theses published between 1995 and 2016 evaluating the impact of health promotion interventions on social isolation and/or loneliness for individuals aged 60 and over. Two reviewers will independently assess each study for inclusion and disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. Data will be extracted using a predefined pro forma following best practice. Study quality will be assessed with the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment tool. A narrative synthesis of all studies will be presented by type of outcome (social isolation or loneliness) and type of intervention. If feasible, the effectiveness data will be synthesised using appropriate statistical techniques.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review is exempt from ethics approval because the work is carried out on published documents. The findings of the review will be disseminated in a related peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. They will also contribute to a DPhil thesis.Trial registration numberCRD42016039650.
| S-EPMC5623425 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveSocial isolation and loneliness are associated with increased mortality and higher health care spending in older adults. Hearing loss is a common condition in older adults and impairs communication and social interactions. The objective of this review is to summarize the current state of the literature exploring the association between hearing loss and social isolation and/or loneliness.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library.Review methodsArticles were screened for inclusion by 2 independent reviewers, with a third reviewer for adjudication. English-language studies of older adults with hearing loss that used a validated measure of social isolation or loneliness were included. A modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the studies included in the review.ResultsOf the 2495 identified studies, 14 were included in the review. Most of the studies (12/14) were cross-sectional. Despite the heterogeneity of assessment methods for hearing status (self-report or objective audiometry), loneliness, and social isolation, most multivariable-adjusted studies found that hearing loss was associated with higher risk of loneliness and social isolation. Several studies found an effect modification of gender such that among women, hearing loss was more strongly associated with loneliness and social isolation than among men.ConclusionsOur findings that hearing loss is associated with loneliness and social isolation have important implications for the cognitive and psychosocial health of older adults. Future studies should investigate whether treating hearing loss can decrease loneliness and social isolation in older adults.
| S-EPMC8292986 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The health impacts of loneliness and social isolation among older adults are widely acknowledged. Despite this, there is no consensus on the possible causal nature of this relationship, which could undermine effectiveness of interventions. One body of thought is that loneliness and social isolation affect health-related behaviours to indirectly damage health. However, there has not been any systematic assessment of the association between loneliness and social isolation and health-related behaviours which considers the possible impact from confounding factors and the causal direction of this association. METHODS/DESIGN:The research will comprise a systematic review and meta-analysis to address the evidence gap. EMBASE, MEDLINE, PSYCINFO, CINAHL, SocIndex, Scopus and Web of Science will be systematically searched for quantitative observational studies considering an association between loneliness/social isolation and key health-related behaviours in older adults. Two reviewers will independently check the study titles and abstracts for eligibility. Included studies will be critically appraised using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale by the lead author and checked by the second reviewer. Discrepancies in eligibility or quality assessment will be resolved via discussion or referral to a third reviewer. Results will be synthesised and reported in accordance with the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) guidelines. This will be in the form of a descriptive summary, risk of bias assessment together with a meta-analysis and sub-group analyses (for covariate adjusted results) where sufficient heterogeneity of results is established. Finally, any associations identified will be analysed using the Bradford-Hill criteria to explore causal relationships which, if they exist, will be reported by means of a computed causations score. DISCUSSION:This review aims to assess the extent and causal nature of associations between loneliness/social isolation and health-related behaviours among older adults. This data will provide a comprehensive overview of the quality of the evidence base to inform stakeholders in tackling the growing public health challenges arising from loneliness/social isolation in ageing populations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42017020845.
| S-EPMC6366024 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe global population of older adults (aged >60 years) is expected to triple to 2 billion by 2050. Proportionate rises in older adults affected by loneliness and social isolation (or social connectedness) are expected. Rapid deployability and social changes have increased the availability of technological devices, creating new opportunities for older adults.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify, synthesize, and critically appraise the effectiveness of technology interventions improving social connectedness in older adults by assessing the quality of reviews, common observations, and derivable themes.MethodsFollowing the guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), 4 databases (PsycINFO, PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE) were searched between February 2020 and March 2022. We identified reviews with adults aged ≥50 years in community and residential settings, reporting outcomes related to the impact of technologies on social disconnectedness with inclusion criteria based on the population, intervention, context, outcomes, and study schema-review-type articles (systematic, meta-analyses, integrative, and scoping)-and with digital interventions included. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) was used to measure the strength of outcome recommendations including the risk of bias. The reviews covered 326 primary studies with 79,538 participants. Findings were extracted, synthesized, and organized according to emerging themes.ResultsOverall, 972 publications met the initial search criteria, and 24 met our inclusion criteria. Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews was used to assess the quality of the analysis. Eligible reviews (3/24, 12%) were excluded because of their low Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews scores (<22). The included reviews were dedicated to information and communications technology (ICT; 11/24, 46%), videoconferencing (4/24, 17%), computer or internet training (3/24, 12%), telecare (2/24, 8%), social networking sites (2/24, 8%), and robotics (2/27, 8%). Although technology was found to improve social connectedness, its effectiveness depended on study design and is improved by shorter durations, longer training times, and the facilitation of existing relationships. ICT and videoconferencing showed the best results, followed by computer training. Social networking sites achieved mixed results. Robotics and augmented reality showed promising results but lacked sufficient data for informed conclusions. The overall quality of the studies based on GRADE was medium low to very low.ConclusionsTechnology interventions can improve social connectedness in older adults. The specific effectiveness rates favor ICT and videoconferencing, but with limited evidence, as indicated by low GRADE ratings. Future intervention and study design guidelines should carefully assess the methodological quality of studies and the overall certainty of specific outcome measures. The lack of randomized controlled trials in underlying primary studies (<28%) and suboptimal methodologies limited our findings. Robotics and augmented or virtual reality warrant further research. Low GRADE scores highlight the need for high-quality research in these areas.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022363475; https://tinyurl.com/mdd6zds.
| S-EPMC9641519 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLoneliness and social isolation are currently among the most challenging social issues. Given their detrimental impact on physical and mental health, identifying feasible and sustainable interventions to alleviate them is highly important. Friendly visiting, a befriending intervention whereby older persons are matched with someone who visits them on a regular basis, seems promising. However, it is unclear if face-to-face (F2F) friendly visiting by a volunteer (FVV) is effective at reducing loneliness or social isolation, or both.ObjectivesTo assess the effect of F2F FVV on feelings of loneliness, social isolation (primary outcomes) and wellbeing (i.e., life satisfaction, depressive symptom experiencing and mental health; secondary outcomes) in older adults.Search methodsWe searched six electronic databases up until 11 August 2021. We also consulted 15 other resources, including grey literature sources and websites of organizations devoted to loneliness and ageing, between 25 October and 29 November 2021.Selection criteriaWe included experimental and observational studies that quantitatively measured the effect of F2F FVV, compared to no friendly visiting, on at least one of following outcomes in older adults (≥60 years of age): loneliness, social isolation or wellbeing.Data collection and analysisTwo reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction and synthesis, risk of bias and GRADE assessment. If outcomes were measured multiple times, we extracted data for one short-term (≤1 month after the intervention had ended), one intermediate-term (>1 and ≤6 months), and one long-term time point (>6 months). Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs were presented and synthesized separately. Synthesis was done using vote counting based on the direction of effect.Main resultsNine RCTs and four non-RCTs, conducted primarily in the United States and involving a total of 470 older adults (mean or median ages: 72-83 years), were included. All studies were limited in size (20-88 participants each). Programmes lasted 6-12 weeks and mostly involved weekly visits by undergraduate students to community-dwelling older adults. Visits consisted mainly of casual conversation, but sometimes involved gameplaying and TV-watching. All studies had major shortcomings in design and execution. The current evidence about the effect of F2F FVV on loneliness in older adults is very uncertain, both in the short (one RCT in 88, and one non-RCT in 35 participants) and intermediate term (one RCT in 86 participants) (both very low-certainty evidence). The same goes for the effects on social isolation, again both in the short (one RCT in 88, and two non-RCTs in 46 participants) and intermediate term (two non-RCTs in 99 participants) (both very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there is a lot of uncertainty about the effect of F2F FVV on outcomes related to wellbeing (all very low-certainty evidence).Authors’ conclusionsDue to the very low-certainty evidence, we are unsure about the effectiveness of F2F FVV with regard to improving loneliness, social isolation, or wellbeing in older adults. Decision-makers considering implementing FVV should take into account this uncertainty. More and larger high-quality studies that are better designed and executed, and preferably conducted in various settings, are needed.
| S-EPMC10688573 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThus far, some empirical studies have investigated the association between oral health and loneliness as well as social isolation. However, a systematic review and meta-analysis is lacking synthesizing this evidence. Hence, our purpose was to close this knowledge gap.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Setting and participantsObservational studies examining the association between oral health and loneliness or social isolation were included. Disease-specific samples were excluded.MethodsWe searched three electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL), and did an additional hand search. Data extraction covered methods, sample characteristics and main findings. To evaluate study quality/risk of bias, the NIH tool was used. Study selection, data extraction and assessment of study quality were each conducted by two reviewers.ResultsSeven studies were included in our current work. Several cross-sectional studies and one longitudinal study reported an association between poorer oral health and higher loneliness as well as higher social isolation. The quality of the studies was mostly fair, with two studies of high quality. The pooled OR was 1.47 (95% CI: 1.24-1.75) among the studies with adult samples.ConclusionMost of the included studies demonstrated an association between oral health and loneliness or social isolation. There is a lack of high quality studies on these associations; in particular, future studies should use longitudinal data to clarify the directionality between oral health and loneliness or social isolation. Prospero registration number: CRD42021268116.
| S-EPMC9166168 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:A growing number of studies suggest that social isolation and loneliness are associated with premature mortality and are more prevalent among people with mental illness than in the general population, outlining many potential paths to disease still to be elucidated. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to examine the relationship between loneliness, social isolation, and established cardiovascular/metabolic risk factors and disorders, especially in severe mental illness, and to account for potential heterogeneity in the literature. METHODS/DESIGN:Studies that report measures of loneliness and/or social isolation along with cardiovascular/metabolic risk factors will be identified. PubMed, EMBASE (through Ovid SP), Scopus, and PsycINFO (through Ovid SP) will be searched, along with citation lists of retrieved articles and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Grey literature will be searched using Google Scholar. Data will be extracted from eligible studies for a random effects meta-analysis. For each study, a summary effect size, heterogeneity, risk of bias, publication bias, and the effect of categorical and continuous moderator variables will be determined. DISCUSSION:This proposed systematic review and meta-analysis will identify and synthesise evidence to determine if there is an association between loneliness, social isolation, and cardiovascular/metabolic risk factors, with a special focus on severe mental illnesses. The results will help determine links and promising avenues of further research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42018111911.
| S-EPMC7199368 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Loneliness and social isolation are growing public health concerns in our ageing society. Whilst these experiences occur across the life span, 50% of individuals aged over 60 are at risk of social isolation and one-third will experience some degree of loneliness later in life. The aim of this scoping review was to describe the range of interventions to reduce loneliness and social isolation among older adults that have been evaluated; in terms of intervention conceptualisation, categorisation, and components. METHODS:Three electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase and Medline) were systematically searched for relevant published reviews of interventions for loneliness and social isolation. Inclusion criteria were: review of any type, published in English, a target population of older people and reported data on the categorisation of loneliness and/or social isolation interventions. Data extracted included: categories of interventions and the reasoning underpinning this categorisation. The methodology framework proposed by Arskey and O'Malley and further developed by Levac, et al. was used to guide the scoping review process. RESULTS:A total of 33 reviews met the inclusion criteria, evaluating a range of interventions targeted at older people residing in the community or institutionalised settings. Authors of reviews included in this paper often used the same terms to categorise different intervention components and many did not provide a clear definition of these terms. There were inconsistent meanings attributed to intervention characteristics. Overall, interventions were commonly categorised on the basis of: 1) group or one-to-one delivery mode, 2) the goal of the intervention, and 3) the intervention type. Several authors replicated the categorisation system used in previous reviews. CONCLUSION:Many interventions have been developed to combat loneliness and social isolation among older people. The individuality of the experience of loneliness and isolation may cause difficulty in the delivery of standardised interventions. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to addressing loneliness or social isolation, and hence the need to tailor interventions to suit the needs of individuals, specific groups or the degree of loneliness experienced. Therefore, future research should be aimed at discerning what intervention works for whom, in what particular context and how.
| S-EPMC7020371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSocialization is an important part of the healthy aging process, but natural changes in the lifestyle and health of older people increased risk of loneliness. However, loneliness is not well defined and might differ in different cultures and settings. The main objective of this systematic review is to summarize literature on the topic and propose a definition that might help aging research and practice in the future.MethodsEight databases including PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Proquest, and Age Line bibliographic will be run individually to retrieve relevant literature on loneliness among elderly population using subject headings and appropriate MeSH terms. Inclusion and exclusion criteria will be developed and refined by the research team. Two reviewers will participate in each search stage including abstract/title and full text screening, data extraction, and appraisal. We will restrict our search to articles published in the English language biomedical journal between 2000 and 2017. The protocol adheres to the standards recommended by the PRISMA-P.DiscussionThe results of this systematic review can present a more accurate definition of loneliness for researchers who aim at conducting new primary and secondary studies on this subject.Systematic review registrationCRD42017058729.
| S-EPMC6335854 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Social isolation is a key predictor of mortality in the US and may be heightened in communities affected by violence. Qualitative studies have documented that people living in high-crime neighborhoods often report being confined to their homes because of safety concerns. However, few quantitative studies have empirically assessed relationships between violence exposure and social isolation. In 2018 we conducted hour-long, in-person surveys with 504 adults in Chicago, Illinois. Prior exposure to community violence was associated with a 3.3-point reduction (on a 100-point scale) in the frequency of interaction with network confidantes, a 7.3-point reduction in perceived social support from friends, and a 7.8-point increase in loneliness. At a time when public health and policy leaders are calling for solutions to the "epidemic of loneliness," identifying populations at higher risk because of violence could help target interventions and ensure equitable access to social and medical support.
| S-EPMC7229645 | biostudies-literature