Friendly visiting by a volunteer for reducing loneliness or social isolation in older adults: A systematic review

IF 4 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Jorien Laermans, Hans Scheers, Philippe Vandekerckhove, Emmy De Buck
{"title":"Friendly visiting by a volunteer for reducing loneliness or social isolation in older adults: A systematic review","authors":"Jorien Laermans,&nbsp;Hans Scheers,&nbsp;Philippe Vandekerckhove,&nbsp;Emmy De Buck","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Loneliness 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Search Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\n \n <p>We 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\n \n <p>Two 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 (&gt;1 and ≤6 months), and one long-term time point (&gt;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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Results</h3>\n \n <p>Nine 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).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Authors’ Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Due 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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"19 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10688573/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1359","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Loneliness 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.

Objectives

To 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 Methods

We 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 Criteria

We 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 Analysis

Two 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 Results

Nine 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’ Conclusions

Due 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.

Abstract Image

通过志愿者的友好访问减少老年人的孤独感或社会隔离:一项系统回顾。
背景:孤独和社会隔离是目前最具挑战性的社会问题之一。鉴于它们对身心健康的有害影响,确定可行和可持续的干预措施以减轻它们是非常重要的。友好探访是一种友好的干预,老年人与定期探访他们的人相匹配,似乎很有希望。然而,目前尚不清楚志愿者面对面(F2F)友好访问(FVV)是否能有效减少孤独感或社会隔离,或者两者兼而有之。目的:评估F2F FVV对孤独感、社会孤立感(主要结局)和幸福感(即生活满意度、抑郁症状经历和心理健康)的影响;老年人的次要结局。检索方法:我们检索了截至2021年8月11日的6个电子数据库。在2021年10月25日至11月29日期间,我们还咨询了其他15种资源,包括灰色文献来源和致力于孤独和老龄化的组织网站。选择标准:我们纳入了实验和观察性研究,这些研究定量测量了F2F FVV对老年人(≥60岁)至少一项以下结果的影响:孤独、社会隔离或幸福感。数据收集和分析:两位审稿人独立进行研究选择、数据提取和综合、偏倚风险和GRADE评估。如果多次测量结果,我们提取了一个短期(干预结束后≤1个月)、一个中期(>1个月和≤6个月)和一个长期时间点(>6个月)的数据。随机对照试验(rct)和非随机对照试验的数据分别报道和综合。合成使用基于效应方向的选票计数。主要结果:9项随机对照试验和4项非随机对照试验,主要在美国进行,共涉及470名老年人(平均或中位年龄:72-83岁)。所有研究的规模有限(每项20-88名受试者)。项目为期6-12周,主要是由本科生每周拜访居住在社区的老年人。拜访主要包括随意的交谈,但有时也包括玩游戏和看电视。所有的研究在设计和执行上都存在重大缺陷。目前关于F2F FVV对老年人孤独感影响的证据非常不确定,无论是短期(88名参与者的一项随机对照试验,35名参与者的一项非随机对照试验)还是中期(86名参与者的一项随机对照试验)(都是非常低确定性的证据)。对社会隔离的影响也是如此,同样是短期的(88名参与者中有一项随机对照试验,46名参与者中有两项非随机对照试验)和中期的(99名参与者中有两项非随机对照试验)(证据的确定性都很低)。同样,F2F FVV对与幸福相关的结果的影响也存在很多不确定性(所有证据的确定性都很低)。作者的结论:由于证据的确定性非常低,我们不确定F2F FVV在改善老年人的孤独感、社会隔离或幸福感方面的有效性。考虑实施FVV的决策者应考虑到这种不确定性。需要更多更大规模的高质量研究,更好地设计和执行,并最好在各种环境中进行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Campbell Systematic Reviews
Campbell Systematic Reviews Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
21.90%
发文量
80
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信