Social network intervention for loneliness and social isolation in a community setting: the PALS cluster-RCT.

Rebecca Band, Karina Kinsella, Jaimie Ellis, Elizabeth James, Sandy Ciccognani, Katie Breheny, Rebecca Kandiyali, Sean Ewings, Anne Rogers
{"title":"Social network intervention for loneliness and social isolation in a community setting: the PALS cluster-RCT.","authors":"Rebecca Band, Karina Kinsella, Jaimie Ellis, Elizabeth James, Sandy Ciccognani, Katie Breheny, Rebecca Kandiyali, Sean Ewings, Anne Rogers","doi":"10.3310/WTJH4379","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Loneliness and social isolation are associated with adverse mental and physical health outcomes in adults. However, there is a lack of existing research on effective interventions and the contexts in which these could be implemented.</p><p><strong>Primary objective: </strong>To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a social network intervention compared to usual care among at-risk populations.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A pragmatic, community-based, cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded health economic evaluation, process evaluation and qualitative study. Outcome assessments were conducted at baseline and at 3 and 6 months.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The study was conducted in collaboration with 44 community-based organisations in two regions in England.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Adults aged ≥ 18 years at risk of loneliness and social isolation.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>A facilitated social network tool ('project about loneliness and social networks'; PALS) designed to link people to opportunities for social involvement. First, participants map and reflect on personal social networks. Second, identification of local resources based on individual preferences, available support, and health and wellness needs.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome was mental wellness at 6-month follow-up, measured by the Short Form questionnaire-12 items mental health component score (MCS). Secondary outcomes included the Short Form questionnaire-12 items Physical Health subscale, loneliness, social isolation, well-being and collective efficacy. Economic measures assessed the cost-effectiveness of the intervention in terms of costs, quality-adjusted life-years and net monetary benefits.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We recruited 469 adults into the study, with 120 withdrawals (25.6%). The main trial results indicate little to no treatment effect of the intervention on either the primary or secondary outcomes compared to usual care. The within-trial economic evaluation found that PALS was inexpensive to deliver but there was no significant difference in quality-adjusted life-years, measures of well-being capability or costs, and the intervention did not lead to demonstrable cost-effectiveness in terms of net monetary benefits. The process evaluation found PALS to be acceptable to all types of community organisations, but low resource availability and capacity to sustain PALS was found across all community organisational contexts. Qualitative interviews (<i>n</i> = 20) highlighted that participants wanted to engage with meaningful social activities but barriers to doing so were psychological (i.e. confidence and competence) and practical (i.e. transport or cost).</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The timing of COVID-19 and associated restrictions (approximately splitting trial follow-up into thirds of pre-COVID, during the first lockdown, and following the trial reopening) meant its impact on the trial is difficult to assess. There were high levels of missing data (20-30% for most outcomes at 6 months), though methods to handle missing data did not change the conclusions of the trial.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings do not provide strong evidence of the efficacy of the PALS social network intervention to address the complexities of loneliness and social isolation. Although the intervention was acceptable to participants and community organisations who hold the potential to deliver such an intervention, sustainability would require a networked approach between organisations to mitigate against the challenges found in each organisation.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>Future interventions for loneliness would likely benefit from utilising a multistep approach providing tailored psychological, relational and social components.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This trial is registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19193075.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/08/41) and is published in full in <i>Public Health Research</i>; Vol. 13, No. 1. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":74615,"journal":{"name":"Public health research (Southampton, England)","volume":"13 1","pages":"1-86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public health research (Southampton, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/WTJH4379","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Loneliness and social isolation are associated with adverse mental and physical health outcomes in adults. However, there is a lack of existing research on effective interventions and the contexts in which these could be implemented.

Primary objective: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a social network intervention compared to usual care among at-risk populations.

Design: A pragmatic, community-based, cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded health economic evaluation, process evaluation and qualitative study. Outcome assessments were conducted at baseline and at 3 and 6 months.

Setting: The study was conducted in collaboration with 44 community-based organisations in two regions in England.

Participants: Adults aged ≥ 18 years at risk of loneliness and social isolation.

Intervention: A facilitated social network tool ('project about loneliness and social networks'; PALS) designed to link people to opportunities for social involvement. First, participants map and reflect on personal social networks. Second, identification of local resources based on individual preferences, available support, and health and wellness needs.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was mental wellness at 6-month follow-up, measured by the Short Form questionnaire-12 items mental health component score (MCS). Secondary outcomes included the Short Form questionnaire-12 items Physical Health subscale, loneliness, social isolation, well-being and collective efficacy. Economic measures assessed the cost-effectiveness of the intervention in terms of costs, quality-adjusted life-years and net monetary benefits.

Results: We recruited 469 adults into the study, with 120 withdrawals (25.6%). The main trial results indicate little to no treatment effect of the intervention on either the primary or secondary outcomes compared to usual care. The within-trial economic evaluation found that PALS was inexpensive to deliver but there was no significant difference in quality-adjusted life-years, measures of well-being capability or costs, and the intervention did not lead to demonstrable cost-effectiveness in terms of net monetary benefits. The process evaluation found PALS to be acceptable to all types of community organisations, but low resource availability and capacity to sustain PALS was found across all community organisational contexts. Qualitative interviews (n = 20) highlighted that participants wanted to engage with meaningful social activities but barriers to doing so were psychological (i.e. confidence and competence) and practical (i.e. transport or cost).

Limitations: The timing of COVID-19 and associated restrictions (approximately splitting trial follow-up into thirds of pre-COVID, during the first lockdown, and following the trial reopening) meant its impact on the trial is difficult to assess. There were high levels of missing data (20-30% for most outcomes at 6 months), though methods to handle missing data did not change the conclusions of the trial.

Conclusions: Our findings do not provide strong evidence of the efficacy of the PALS social network intervention to address the complexities of loneliness and social isolation. Although the intervention was acceptable to participants and community organisations who hold the potential to deliver such an intervention, sustainability would require a networked approach between organisations to mitigate against the challenges found in each organisation.

Future work: Future interventions for loneliness would likely benefit from utilising a multistep approach providing tailored psychological, relational and social components.

Trial registration: This trial is registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19193075.

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/08/41) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 13, No. 1. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

社区环境中孤独感和社会隔离的社会网络干预:PALS集群-随机对照试验。
背景:孤独和社会隔离与成年人不良的心理和身体健康结果相关。然而,目前缺乏关于有效干预措施和实施这些措施的背景的研究。主要目的:评估在高危人群中,与常规护理相比,社会网络干预的临床和成本效益。设计:一项实用的、基于社区的、集群随机对照试验,包含健康经济评估、过程评估和定性研究。在基线、3个月和6个月时进行结果评估。环境:这项研究是与英国两个地区的44个社区组织合作进行的。参与者:有孤独和社会隔离风险的年龄≥18岁的成年人。干预:一个便利的社会网络工具(“关于孤独和社会网络的项目”;PALS)旨在将人们与社会参与的机会联系起来。首先,参与者绘制和反思个人社交网络。第二,根据个人偏好、现有支持以及健康和保健需求确定当地资源。主要结局指标:主要结局指标为6个月随访时的心理健康状况,采用简短问卷-12项心理健康成分评分(MCS)进行测量。次要结果包括简短问卷-12项身体健康量表、孤独感、社会隔离、幸福感和集体效能。经济措施评估了干预措施的成本效益,包括成本、质量调整寿命年和净货币收益。结果:我们招募了469名成年人加入研究,其中120人退出(25.6%)。主要试验结果表明,与常规护理相比,干预对主要或次要结局几乎没有治疗效果。试验内经济评估发现,PALS的成本不高,但在质量调整生命年、福祉能力或成本方面没有显著差异,而且就净货币效益而言,干预措施没有产生可证明的成本效益。过程评估发现,所有类型的社区组织都可以接受PALS,但在所有社区组织环境中都发现资源可用性和维持PALS的能力较低。定性访谈(n = 20)强调,参与者希望参与有意义的社会活动,但这样做的障碍是心理上的(即信心和能力)和实际的(即交通或成本)。限制:COVID-19的时间和相关限制(大约将试验随访分为COVID-19前的三分之一,在第一次封锁期间,以及在试验重新开放之后)意味着其对试验的影响难以评估。虽然处理缺失数据的方法并没有改变试验的结论,但缺失数据的水平很高(6个月时大多数结果为20-30%)。结论:我们的研究结果并没有提供强有力的证据来证明PALS社会网络干预对解决孤独和社会隔离的复杂性的有效性。尽管参与者和有潜力提供这种干预的社区组织可以接受这种干预,但可持续性需要组织之间的网络方法来减轻每个组织中发现的挑战。未来的工作:未来对孤独的干预可能会受益于采用多步骤的方法,提供量身定制的心理、关系和社会成分。试验注册:该试验注册为当前对照试验ISRCTN19193075。资助:该奖项由美国国家卫生与保健研究所(NIHR)公共卫生研究项目(NIHR奖号:16/08/41)资助,全文发表在《公共卫生研究》杂志上;第13卷第1期有关进一步的奖励信息,请参阅美国国立卫生研究院资助和奖励网站。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信