Vivian Welch, Elizabeth T. Ghogomu, Victoria I. Barbeau, Sierra Dowling, Rebecca Doyle, Ella Beveridge, Elisabeth Boulton, Payaam Desai, Jimmy Huang, Nour Elmestekawy, Tarannum Hussain, Arpana Wadhwani, Sabrina Boutin, Niobe Haitas, Dylan Kneale, Douglas M. Salzwedel, Roger Simard, Paul Hébert, Christopher Mikton
{"title":"减少老年人社会孤立和孤独感的数字干预措施:证据和差距图","authors":"Vivian Welch, Elizabeth T. Ghogomu, Victoria I. Barbeau, Sierra Dowling, Rebecca Doyle, Ella Beveridge, Elisabeth Boulton, Payaam Desai, Jimmy Huang, Nour Elmestekawy, Tarannum Hussain, Arpana Wadhwani, Sabrina Boutin, Niobe Haitas, Dylan Kneale, Douglas M. Salzwedel, Roger Simard, Paul Hébert, Christopher Mikton","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1369","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Social isolation and loneliness are more common in older adults and are associated with a serious impact on their well-being, mental health, physical health, and longevity. They are a public health concern highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, hence the need for digital technology tools to enable remotely delivered interventions to alleviate the impact of social isolation and loneliness during the COVID-19 restrictions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To map available evidence on the effects of digital interventions to mitigate social isolation and/or loneliness in older adults in all settings except hospital settings.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Search Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We searched the following databases from inception to May 16, 2021, with no language restrictions. Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCO, Web of Science via Clarivate, ProQuest (all databases), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) via ProQuest, EBSCO (all databases except CINAHL), Global Index Medicus, and Epistemonikos.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\n \n <p>Titles and abstracts and full text of potentially eligible articles were independently screened in duplicate following the eligibility criteria.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\n \n <p>We developed and pilot tested a data extraction code set in Eppi-Reviewer and data were individually extracted and coded based on an intervention-outcome framework which was also used to define the dimensions of the evidence and gap map.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Results</h3>\n \n <p>We included 200 articles (103 primary studies and 97 systematic reviews) that assessed the effects of digital interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness in older adults. Most of the systematic reviews (72%) were classified as critically low quality, only 2% as high quality and 25% were published since the COVID-19 pandemic. The evidence is unevenly distributed with clusters predominantly in high-income countries and none in low-income countries. The most common interventions identified are digital interventions to enhance social interactions with family and friends and the community via videoconferencing and telephone calls. Digital interventions to enhance social support, particularly socially assistive robots, and virtual pets were also common. Most interventions focused on reducing loneliness and depression and improving quality of life of older adults. Major gaps were identified in community level outcomes and process indicators. No included studies or reviews assessed affordability or digital divide although the value of accessibility and barriers caused by digital divide were discussed in three primary studies and three reviews. Adverse effects were reported in only two studies and six reviews. No study or review included participants from the LGBTQIA2S+ community and only one study restricted participants to 80 years and older. Very few described how at-risk populations were recruited or conducted any equity analysis to assess differences in effects for populations experiencing inequities across PROGRESS-Plus categories.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Authors' Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The restrictions placed on people during the pandemic have shone a spotlight onto social isolation and loneliness, particularly for older adults. This evidence and gap map shows available evidence on the effectiveness of digital interventions for reducing social isolation or loneliness in older adults. Although the evidence is relatively large and recent, it is unevenly distributed and there is need for more high-quality research. This map can guide researchers and funders to consider areas of major gaps as priorities for further research.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"19 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1369","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Digital interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness in older adults: An evidence and gap map\",\"authors\":\"Vivian Welch, Elizabeth T. Ghogomu, Victoria I. Barbeau, Sierra Dowling, Rebecca Doyle, Ella Beveridge, Elisabeth Boulton, Payaam Desai, Jimmy Huang, Nour Elmestekawy, Tarannum Hussain, Arpana Wadhwani, Sabrina Boutin, Niobe Haitas, Dylan Kneale, Douglas M. Salzwedel, Roger Simard, Paul Hébert, Christopher Mikton\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cl2.1369\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Social isolation and loneliness are more common in older adults and are associated with a serious impact on their well-being, mental health, physical health, and longevity. They are a public health concern highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, hence the need for digital technology tools to enable remotely delivered interventions to alleviate the impact of social isolation and loneliness during the COVID-19 restrictions.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>To map available evidence on the effects of digital interventions to mitigate social isolation and/or loneliness in older adults in all settings except hospital settings.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Search Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We searched the following databases from inception to May 16, 2021, with no language restrictions. Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCO, Web of Science via Clarivate, ProQuest (all databases), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) via ProQuest, EBSCO (all databases except CINAHL), Global Index Medicus, and Epistemonikos.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\\n \\n <p>Titles and abstracts and full text of potentially eligible articles were independently screened in duplicate following the eligibility criteria.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\\n \\n <p>We developed and pilot tested a data extraction code set in Eppi-Reviewer and data were individually extracted and coded based on an intervention-outcome framework which was also used to define the dimensions of the evidence and gap map.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Main Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>We included 200 articles (103 primary studies and 97 systematic reviews) that assessed the effects of digital interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness in older adults. Most of the systematic reviews (72%) were classified as critically low quality, only 2% as high quality and 25% were published since the COVID-19 pandemic. The evidence is unevenly distributed with clusters predominantly in high-income countries and none in low-income countries. The most common interventions identified are digital interventions to enhance social interactions with family and friends and the community via videoconferencing and telephone calls. Digital interventions to enhance social support, particularly socially assistive robots, and virtual pets were also common. Most interventions focused on reducing loneliness and depression and improving quality of life of older adults. Major gaps were identified in community level outcomes and process indicators. No included studies or reviews assessed affordability or digital divide although the value of accessibility and barriers caused by digital divide were discussed in three primary studies and three reviews. Adverse effects were reported in only two studies and six reviews. No study or review included participants from the LGBTQIA2S+ community and only one study restricted participants to 80 years and older. Very few described how at-risk populations were recruited or conducted any equity analysis to assess differences in effects for populations experiencing inequities across PROGRESS-Plus categories.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Authors' Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The restrictions placed on people during the pandemic have shone a spotlight onto social isolation and loneliness, particularly for older adults. This evidence and gap map shows available evidence on the effectiveness of digital interventions for reducing social isolation or loneliness in older adults. Although the evidence is relatively large and recent, it is unevenly distributed and there is need for more high-quality research. This map can guide researchers and funders to consider areas of major gaps as priorities for further research.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Campbell Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"19 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1369\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Campbell Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1369\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1369","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
摘要
社会孤立和孤独在老年人中更为常见,并对他们的福祉、心理健康、身体健康和寿命产生严重影响。这是COVID-19大流行限制措施所突出的一个公共卫生问题,因此需要数字技术工具来实现远程提供干预措施,以减轻COVID-19限制期间社会隔离和孤独的影响。目的对除医院外所有环境中数字干预措施对减轻老年人社会隔离和/或孤独感的影响的现有证据进行分析。我们检索了以下数据库,从成立到2021年5月16日,没有语言限制。Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo通过Ovid, CINAHL通过EBSCO, Web of Science通过Clarivate, ProQuest(所有数据库),International Bibliography of Social Sciences (IBSS)通过ProQuest, EBSCO(除CINAHL外的所有数据库),Global Index Medicus和Epistemonikos。根据入选标准,对潜在入选文章的标题、摘要和全文进行独立筛选,一式两份。我们在Eppi-Reviewer中开发并试点测试了一套数据提取代码,并根据干预-结果框架对数据进行了单独提取和编码,该框架还用于定义证据和差距图的维度。我们纳入了200篇文章(103项初步研究和97项系统综述),评估了数字干预对减少老年人社会隔离和/或孤独感的影响。大多数系统评价(72%)被列为极低质量,只有2%为高质量,25%是在COVID-19大流行之后发表的。证据分布不均,主要集中在高收入国家,而低收入国家没有。确定的最常见的干预措施是通过视频会议和电话加强与家人、朋友和社区的社会互动的数字干预措施。加强社会支持的数字干预措施,特别是社交辅助机器人和虚拟宠物也很常见。大多数干预措施的重点是减少孤独和抑郁,提高老年人的生活质量。在社区一级的成果和过程指标方面发现了主要差距。没有纳入的研究或综述评估可负担性或数字鸿沟,尽管在三项主要研究和三项综述中讨论了可及性的价值和数字鸿沟造成的障碍。只有两项研究和六篇综述报告了不良反应。没有研究或综述纳入LGBTQIA2S+群体的参与者,只有一项研究将参与者限制在80岁及以上。很少有人描述如何招募高危人群或进行任何公平分析,以评估在PROGRESS-Plus类别中经历不平等的人群的影响差异。大流行期间对人们施加的限制使人们关注到社会隔离和孤独,尤其是老年人。该证据和差距图显示了数字干预措施在减少老年人社会孤立或孤独感方面的有效性的现有证据。虽然证据相对较多且较新,但分布不均,需要更多高质量的研究。这张地图可以指导研究人员和资助者考虑将主要差距领域作为进一步研究的优先事项。
Digital interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness in older adults: An evidence and gap map
Background
Social isolation and loneliness are more common in older adults and are associated with a serious impact on their well-being, mental health, physical health, and longevity. They are a public health concern highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, hence the need for digital technology tools to enable remotely delivered interventions to alleviate the impact of social isolation and loneliness during the COVID-19 restrictions.
Objectives
To map available evidence on the effects of digital interventions to mitigate social isolation and/or loneliness in older adults in all settings except hospital settings.
Search Methods
We searched the following databases from inception to May 16, 2021, with no language restrictions. Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCO, Web of Science via Clarivate, ProQuest (all databases), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) via ProQuest, EBSCO (all databases except CINAHL), Global Index Medicus, and Epistemonikos.
Selection Criteria
Titles and abstracts and full text of potentially eligible articles were independently screened in duplicate following the eligibility criteria.
Data Collection and Analysis
We developed and pilot tested a data extraction code set in Eppi-Reviewer and data were individually extracted and coded based on an intervention-outcome framework which was also used to define the dimensions of the evidence and gap map.
Main Results
We included 200 articles (103 primary studies and 97 systematic reviews) that assessed the effects of digital interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness in older adults. Most of the systematic reviews (72%) were classified as critically low quality, only 2% as high quality and 25% were published since the COVID-19 pandemic. The evidence is unevenly distributed with clusters predominantly in high-income countries and none in low-income countries. The most common interventions identified are digital interventions to enhance social interactions with family and friends and the community via videoconferencing and telephone calls. Digital interventions to enhance social support, particularly socially assistive robots, and virtual pets were also common. Most interventions focused on reducing loneliness and depression and improving quality of life of older adults. Major gaps were identified in community level outcomes and process indicators. No included studies or reviews assessed affordability or digital divide although the value of accessibility and barriers caused by digital divide were discussed in three primary studies and three reviews. Adverse effects were reported in only two studies and six reviews. No study or review included participants from the LGBTQIA2S+ community and only one study restricted participants to 80 years and older. Very few described how at-risk populations were recruited or conducted any equity analysis to assess differences in effects for populations experiencing inequities across PROGRESS-Plus categories.
Authors' Conclusions
The restrictions placed on people during the pandemic have shone a spotlight onto social isolation and loneliness, particularly for older adults. This evidence and gap map shows available evidence on the effectiveness of digital interventions for reducing social isolation or loneliness in older adults. Although the evidence is relatively large and recent, it is unevenly distributed and there is need for more high-quality research. This map can guide researchers and funders to consider areas of major gaps as priorities for further research.