GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: Campbell Systematic Reviews, Wiley, Vol. 20, No. 2 ( 2024-06)
    Abstract: Social isolation and loneliness can occur in all age groups, and they are linked to increased mortality and poorer health outcomes. There is a growing body of research indicating inconsistent findings on the effectiveness of interventions aiming to alleviate social isolation and loneliness. Hence the need to facilitate the discoverability of research on these interventions. Objectives To map available evidence on the effects of in‐person interventions aimed at mitigating social isolation and/or loneliness across all age groups and settings. Search Methods The following databases were searched from inception up to 17 February 2022 with no language restrictions: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, EBM Reviews—Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, APA PsycInfo via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCO, EBSCO (all databases except CINAHL), Global Index Medicus, ProQuest (all databases), ProQuest ERIC, Web of Science, Korean Citation Index, Russian Science Citation Index, and SciELO Citation Index via Clarivate, and Elsevier Scopus. Selection Criteria Titles, abstracts, and full texts of potentially eligible articles identified were screened independently by two reviewers for inclusion following the outlined eligibility criteria. Data Collection and Analysis We developed and pilot tested a data extraction code set in Eppi‐Reviewer. Data was individually extracted and coded. We used the AMSTAR2 tool to assess the quality of reviews. However, the quality of the primary studies was not assessed. Main Results A total of 513 articles (421 primary studies and 92 systematic reviews) were included in this evidence and gap map which assessed the effectiveness of in‐person interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness. Most (68%) of the reviews were classified as critically low quality, while less than 5% were classified as high or moderate quality. Most reviews looked at interpersonal delivery and community‐based delivery interventions, especially interventions for changing cognition led by a health professional and group activities, respectively. Loneliness, wellbeing, and depression/anxiety were the most assessed outcomes. Most research was conducted in high‐income countries, concentrated in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia, with none from low‐income countries. Major gaps were identified in societal level and community‐based delivery interventions that address policies and community structures, respectively. Less than 5% of included reviews assessed process indicators or implementation outcomes. Similar patterns of evidence and gaps were found in primary studies. All age groups were represented but more reviews and primary studies focused on older adults (≥60 years, 63%) compared to young people (≤24 years, 34%). Two thirds described how at‐risk populations were identified and even fewer assessed differences in effect across equity factors for populations experiencing inequities. Authors’ Conclusions There is growing evidence that social isolation and loneliness are public health concerns. This evidence and gap map shows the available evidence, at the time of the search, on the effectiveness of in‐person interventions at reducing social isolation and loneliness across all ages and settings. Despite a large body of research, with much of it published in more recent years, it is unevenly distributed geographically and across types of interventions and outcomes. Most of the systematic reviews are of critically low quality, indicating the need for high quality reviews. This map can guide funders and researchers to consider the areas in which the evidence is lacking and to address these gaps as future research priorities.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1891-1803 , 1891-1803
    URL: Issue
    Language: English
    Publisher: Wiley
    Publication Date: 2024
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2762761-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Wiley, Vol. 2022, No. 1 ( 2022-01-18)
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1465-1858
    Language: English
    Publisher: Wiley
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2038950-4
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: BMJ Open, BMJ, Vol. 12, No. 9 ( 2022-09), p. e063485-
    Abstract: To explore and map the findings of prior research priority-setting initiatives related to improving the health and well-being of older adults. Design Scoping review. Data sources Searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AgeLine, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases from January 2014 to 26 April 2021, and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities. Eligibility criteria We included primary studies reporting research priorities gathered from stakeholders that focused on ageing or the health of older adults (≥60 years). There were no restrictions by setting, but language was limited to English and French. Data extraction and synthesis We used a modified Reporting Guideline for Priority Setting of Health Research (REPRISE) guideline to assess the transparency of the reported methods. Population–intervention–control–outcome (PICO) priorities were categorised according to their associated International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI) and International Classification of Functioning (ICF) outcomes. Broad research topics were categorised thematically. Results Sixty-four studies met our inclusion criteria. The studies gathered opinions from various stakeholder groups, including clinicians (n=56 studies) and older adults (n=35), and caregivers (n=24), with 75% of the initiatives involving multiple groups. None of the included priority-setting initiatives reported gathering opinions from stakeholders located in low-income or middle-income countries. Of the priorities extracted, 272 were identified as broad research topics, while 217 were identified as PICO priorities. PICO priorities that involved clinical outcomes (n=165 priorities) and interventions concerning health-related behaviours (n=59) were identified most often. Broad research topics on health services and systems were identified most often (n=60). Across all these included studies, the reporting of six REPRISE elements was deemed to be critically low. Conclusion Future priority setting initiatives should focus on documenting a more detailed methodology with all initiatives eliciting opinions from caregivers and older adults to ensure priorities reflect the opinions of all key stakeholder groups.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2044-6055 , 2044-6055
    Language: English
    Publisher: BMJ
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2599832-8
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...