D L Surkalim, A Farzana, W Y Choo, S Hussein, P C Hébert, V Welch, E Tanjong Ghogomu, C Mikton
{"title":"资产:对世界卫生组织的社会隔离和孤独干预分类系统进行系统审查和发展。","authors":"D L Surkalim, A Farzana, W Y Choo, S Hussein, P C Hébert, V Welch, E Tanjong Ghogomu, C Mikton","doi":"10.1186/s12963-026-00472-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Social isolation and loneliness (SIL) have emerged as critical population health concerns linked to various adverse health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, stroke, dementia, depression, and premature mortality. However, the absence of a standard categorization for interventions aimed at reducing SIL has impeded consistent comparison, evaluation, and the accumulation of knowledge, affecting evidence-based policy decisions. To address this gap, we developed and empirically evaluated the ASSeTS (Access, Skills, Social engagement, Therapeutic and psychological, Systemic) classification system, a standardized approach for categorizing SIL interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review to identify and evaluate existing classification systems used for SIL interventions. Seventeen databases were searched from inception to September 2023, with no language restrictions. Inclusion criteria encompassed established and widely used reviews with clear intervention categorizations and broad applicability to general population groups. Expert consultations supplemented the systematic review, providing iterative feedback and additional relevant literature missed from the literature search, to inform the development of the ASSeTS classification framework. The developed ASSeTS system was empirically tested by independent experts for clarity, applicability, and reliability, with inter-rater agreement assessed using Fleiss' kappa.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review identified 11 studies covering a range of SIL intervention categorization approaches. Based on synthesis and expert feedback, the ASSeTS system was structured into five main categories: Access, Skills, Social engagement, Therapeutic and psychological, and Systemic interventions. Empirical testing yielded moderate inter-rater reliability (κ = 0.419), indicating acceptable usability among expert raters. Higher agreement was found for categories such as therapeutic and psychological interventions, whereas systemic interventions showed lower reliability, suggesting opportunities for future refinement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The ASSeTS classification system provides a much-needed standardized framework for categorizing SIL interventions, facilitating comparability, rigorous evaluation, cumulative knowledge, and evidence-based policy decisions. Future work should focus on refining less reliable categories, validating ASSeTS across various contexts, and integrating it into global policy frameworks to more effectively address the public health implications of SIL.</p>","PeriodicalId":51476,"journal":{"name":"Population Health Metrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13104352/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ASSeTS: a systematic review and development of the World Health Organization's classification system for social isolation and loneliness interventions.\",\"authors\":\"D L Surkalim, A Farzana, W Y Choo, S Hussein, P C Hébert, V Welch, E Tanjong Ghogomu, C Mikton\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12963-026-00472-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Social isolation and loneliness (SIL) have emerged as critical population health concerns linked to various adverse health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, stroke, dementia, depression, and premature mortality. However, the absence of a standard categorization for interventions aimed at reducing SIL has impeded consistent comparison, evaluation, and the accumulation of knowledge, affecting evidence-based policy decisions. To address this gap, we developed and empirically evaluated the ASSeTS (Access, Skills, Social engagement, Therapeutic and psychological, Systemic) classification system, a standardized approach for categorizing SIL interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review to identify and evaluate existing classification systems used for SIL interventions. Seventeen databases were searched from inception to September 2023, with no language restrictions. Inclusion criteria encompassed established and widely used reviews with clear intervention categorizations and broad applicability to general population groups. Expert consultations supplemented the systematic review, providing iterative feedback and additional relevant literature missed from the literature search, to inform the development of the ASSeTS classification framework. The developed ASSeTS system was empirically tested by independent experts for clarity, applicability, and reliability, with inter-rater agreement assessed using Fleiss' kappa.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review identified 11 studies covering a range of SIL intervention categorization approaches. Based on synthesis and expert feedback, the ASSeTS system was structured into five main categories: Access, Skills, Social engagement, Therapeutic and psychological, and Systemic interventions. Empirical testing yielded moderate inter-rater reliability (κ = 0.419), indicating acceptable usability among expert raters. Higher agreement was found for categories such as therapeutic and psychological interventions, whereas systemic interventions showed lower reliability, suggesting opportunities for future refinement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The ASSeTS classification system provides a much-needed standardized framework for categorizing SIL interventions, facilitating comparability, rigorous evaluation, cumulative knowledge, and evidence-based policy decisions. Future work should focus on refining less reliable categories, validating ASSeTS across various contexts, and integrating it into global policy frameworks to more effectively address the public health implications of SIL.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51476,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Population Health Metrics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13104352/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Population Health Metrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-026-00472-7\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Population Health Metrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-026-00472-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
ASSeTS: a systematic review and development of the World Health Organization's classification system for social isolation and loneliness interventions.
Background: Social isolation and loneliness (SIL) have emerged as critical population health concerns linked to various adverse health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, stroke, dementia, depression, and premature mortality. However, the absence of a standard categorization for interventions aimed at reducing SIL has impeded consistent comparison, evaluation, and the accumulation of knowledge, affecting evidence-based policy decisions. To address this gap, we developed and empirically evaluated the ASSeTS (Access, Skills, Social engagement, Therapeutic and psychological, Systemic) classification system, a standardized approach for categorizing SIL interventions.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review to identify and evaluate existing classification systems used for SIL interventions. Seventeen databases were searched from inception to September 2023, with no language restrictions. Inclusion criteria encompassed established and widely used reviews with clear intervention categorizations and broad applicability to general population groups. Expert consultations supplemented the systematic review, providing iterative feedback and additional relevant literature missed from the literature search, to inform the development of the ASSeTS classification framework. The developed ASSeTS system was empirically tested by independent experts for clarity, applicability, and reliability, with inter-rater agreement assessed using Fleiss' kappa.
Results: The review identified 11 studies covering a range of SIL intervention categorization approaches. Based on synthesis and expert feedback, the ASSeTS system was structured into five main categories: Access, Skills, Social engagement, Therapeutic and psychological, and Systemic interventions. Empirical testing yielded moderate inter-rater reliability (κ = 0.419), indicating acceptable usability among expert raters. Higher agreement was found for categories such as therapeutic and psychological interventions, whereas systemic interventions showed lower reliability, suggesting opportunities for future refinement.
Conclusion: The ASSeTS classification system provides a much-needed standardized framework for categorizing SIL interventions, facilitating comparability, rigorous evaluation, cumulative knowledge, and evidence-based policy decisions. Future work should focus on refining less reliable categories, validating ASSeTS across various contexts, and integrating it into global policy frameworks to more effectively address the public health implications of SIL.
期刊介绍:
Population Health Metrics aims to advance the science of population health assessment, and welcomes papers relating to concepts, methods, ethics, applications, and summary measures of population health. The journal provides a unique platform for population health researchers to share their findings with the global community. We seek research that addresses the communication of population health measures and policy implications to stakeholders; this includes papers related to burden estimation and risk assessment, and research addressing population health across the full range of development. Population Health Metrics covers a broad range of topics encompassing health state measurement and valuation, summary measures of population health, descriptive epidemiology at the population level, burden of disease and injury analysis, disease and risk factor modeling for populations, and comparative assessment of risks to health at the population level. The journal is also interested in how to use and communicate indicators of population health to reduce disease burden, and the approaches for translating from indicators of population health to health-advancing actions. As a cross-cutting topic of importance, we are particularly interested in inequalities in population health and their measurement.