Hearing Loss, Loneliness, and Social Isolation: A Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
Social 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 sources
PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library.Review methods
Articles 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.Results
Of 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.Conclusions
Our 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.
SUBMITTER: Shukla A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8292986 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Objectives Thus 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. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting and Participants Observational studies examining the association between oral health and loneliness or social isolation were included. Disease-specific samples were excluded. Methods We 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. Results Seven 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. Conclusion Most 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. Electronic Supplementary Material Supplementary material is available for this article at 10.1007/s12603-022-1806-8 and is accessible for authorized users.
| S-EPMC9166168 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Social 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 ANALYSIS:A 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 DISSEMINATION:This 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 NUMBER:CRD42016039650.
| S-EPMC5623425 | biostudies-other
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened social isolation and loneliness. There is a lack of consensus on rating scales to measure these constructs. Our objectives were to identify commonly used loneliness and social isolation scales over the last two decades and test their user characteristics. 7928 articles were searched in PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and APA PsychINFO databases. 41 articles were included based on study criteria. Among fourteen scales reported, UCLA 3-item loneliness scale was found to be most commonly used. The scale is specifically developed for telephone use and is the fastest taking less than a minute for self-administration.
| S-EPMC8502233 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSome 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 analysisThree 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 disseminationNo 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 numberCRD42020193099.
| S-EPMC8098962 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLoneliness and social isolation are recognised as social problems and denote a significant health burden. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review to explore the health state utility values (HSUVs) associated with loneliness and/or social isolation.MethodPeer-reviewed journals published in English language that reported both HSUVs along with loneliness and/or social isolation scores were identified through five databases. No restrictions were made relating to the population, study design or utility estimation method used.ResultsIn total, 19 papers were included; 12 included a measure of loneliness, four studies included a measure of social isolation and three studies considered both loneliness and social isolation. All studies focused on individuals with pre-existing health conditions-where the EQ-5D-3L instrument was most frequently used to assess HSUVs. HSUVs ranged from 0.5 to 0.95 in those who reported not being lonely, 0.42 to 0.97 in those who experienced some level of loneliness, 0.3 to 0.87 in those who were socially isolated and 0.63 to 0.94 in those who were not socially isolated.ConclusionThere was significant variation in HSUVs complicated by the presence of co-morbidities, population heterogeneity, variations in methods used to derive utility scores and differences in the measurement of loneliness and/or social isolation. Nevertheless, the lower HSUVs observed should be considered to significantly impact quality of life, though we also note the need for further research to explore the unique impact of loneliness and social isolation on HSUVs that can be used in the future economic evaluations.
| S-EPMC8785005 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLoneliness and social isolation are associated with multiple health problems, including depression, functional impairment, and death. Mobile sensing using smartphones and wearable devices, such as fitness trackers or smartwatches, as well as ambient sensors, can be used to acquire data remotely on individuals and their daily routines and behaviors in real time. This has opened new possibilities for the early detection of health and social problems, including loneliness and social isolation.ObjectiveThis scoping review aimed to identify and synthesize recent scientific studies that used passive sensing techniques, such as the use of in-home ambient sensors, smartphones, and wearable device sensors, to collect data on device users' daily routines and behaviors to detect loneliness or social isolation. This review also aimed to examine various aspects of these studies, especially target populations, privacy, and validation issues.MethodsA scoping review was undertaken, following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). Studies on the topic under investigation were identified through 6 databases (IEEE Xplore, Scopus, ACM, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase). The identified studies were screened for the type of passive sensing detection methods for loneliness and social isolation, targeted population, reliability of the detection systems, challenges, and limitations of these detection systems.ResultsAfter conducting the initial search, a total of 40,071 papers were identified. After screening for inclusion and exclusion criteria, 29 (0.07%) studies were included in this scoping review. Most studies (20/29, 69%) used smartphone and wearable technology to detect loneliness or social isolation, and 72% (21/29) of the studies used a validated reference standard to assess the accuracy of passively collected data for detecting loneliness or social isolation.ConclusionsDespite the growing use of passive sensing technologies for detecting loneliness and social isolation, some substantial gaps still remain in this domain. A population heterogeneity issue exists among several studies, indicating that different demographic characteristics, such as age and differences in participants' behaviors, can affect loneliness and social isolation. In addition, despite extensive personal data collection, relatively few studies have addressed privacy and ethical issues. This review provides uncertain evidence regarding the use of passive sensing to detect loneliness and social isolation. Future research is needed using robust study designs, measures, and examinations of privacy and ethical concerns.
| S-EPMC9044142 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA significant proportion of the worldwide population is at risk of social isolation and loneliness as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to identify effective interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness that are compatible with COVID-19 shielding and social distancing measures.Methods and findingsIn this rapid systematic review, we searched six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and SCOPUS) from inception to April 2020 for systematic reviews appraising interventions for loneliness and/or social isolation. Primary studies from those reviews were eligible if they included: 1) participants in a non-hospital setting; 2) interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness that would be feasible during COVID-19 shielding measures; 3) a relevant control group; and 4) quantitative measures of social isolation, social support or loneliness. At least two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Downs and Black checklist. Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42020178654. We identified 45 RCTs and 13 non-randomised controlled trials; none were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The nature, type, and potential effectiveness of interventions varied greatly. Effective interventions for loneliness include psychological therapies such as mindfulness, lessons on friendship, robotic pets, and social facilitation software. Few interventions improved social isolation. Overall, 37 of 58 studies were of "Fair" quality, as measured by the Downs & Black checklist. The main study limitations identified were the inclusion of studies of variable quality; the applicability of our findings to the entire population; and the current poor understanding of the types of loneliness and isolation experienced by different groups affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.ConclusionsMany effective interventions involved cognitive or educational components, or facilitated communication between peers. These interventions may require minor modifications to align with COVID-19 shielding/social distancing measures. Future high-quality randomised controlled trials conducted under shielding/social distancing constraints are urgently needed.
| S-EPMC7888614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHearing loss is linked to loneliness and social isolation, but evidence is typically based on self-reported hearing. This study quantifies the associations of objective and subjective hearing loss with loneliness and social network characteristics among older adults with untreated hearing loss.MethodsThis study uses baseline data (N = 933) from the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) study. Hearing loss was quantified by the better ear, speech-frequency pure tone average (PTA), Quick Speech-in-Noise test, and hearing-related quality of life. Outcomes were validated measures of loneliness and social network characteristics. Associations were assessed by Poisson, negative binomial, and linear regression adjusted for demographic, health, and study design characteristics.ResultsParticipants were mean of 76.8 (4.0) years, 54.0% female, and 87.6% White. Prevalence of loneliness was 38%. Worse PTA was associated with a 19% greater prevalence of moderate or greater loneliness (prevalence ration [PR]: 1.19.95% CI: 1.06, 1.33). Better speech-in-noise recognition was associated with greater social network characteristics (eg, larger social network size [IRR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.07]). Worse hearing-related quality of life was associated with a 29% greater prevalence of moderate or greater loneliness (PR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.19, 1.39) and worse social network characteristics (eg, more constricted social network size [IRR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.91, 1.00]).ConclusionsResults suggest the importance of multiple dimensions of hearing to loneliness and social connectedness. Hearing-related quality of life may be a potentially useful, easily administered clinical tool for identifying older adults with hearing loss associated with greater loneliness and social isolation.
| S-EPMC10809043 | 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