What is the effect of intergenerational activities on the wellbeing and mental health of older people?: A systematic review

Background

Opportunities for social connection between generations have diminished over the last few decades around the world as a result of changes in the way that we live and work. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated loneliness for many with young and old being kept apart for safety. The Public Health England prevention concordat for better mental health (Office for Health Improvement and Disparities) aims to bring a prevention-focused approach to improving public mental health. The concordat promotes evidence-based planning and commissioning to increase the impact on reducing health inequalities using sustainable and cost-effective interventions that impact on the wider determinants of mental health and wellbeing for children and young people and older people. Intergenerational activities could provide an opportunity to support both populations. In 2023, we produced an evidence and gap map to illustrate the amount and variety of research on intergenerational interventions and the gaps in research that still exist in this area. The review conducted here is based on the evidence in that map.

Objectives

This systematic review examines the impact of intergenerational interventions on the wellbeing and mental health of older people and identifies areas for future research as well as key messages for service commissioners.

Search Methods

We searched an evidence and gap map published in 2022 (comprehensive searches conducted July 2021 and updated June 2023) to identify randomised controlled trials of intergenerational interventions that report mental health and wellbeing outcomes for older people.

Selection Criteria

Randomised controlled trials of intergenerational interventions that involved unrelated younger and older people with at least one skipped generation between them and reported mental health or wellbeing outcomes for older people were included in this review.

Data Collection and Analysis

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Campbell Collaboration. We conducted data extraction and Cochrane risk of bias assessments in EPPI reviewer. Where data allowed meta-analyses were conducted in STATA.

Main Results

This review includes 14 trials from six different countries. The trials had some important methodological weaknesses. Interventions were mainly delivered in-person and often in groups. They included visiting programmes, school volunteering programmes, music-based interventions and task-oriented interventions such as activities set in a multigenerational park, reminiscing activities, aggression management programmes, learning a language, making local environmental changes and in-school project work. Intergenerational interventions showed a small positive trend towards improving self-esteem (effect size [ES]: 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.35, 1.01) and depression (ES: 0.19, 95% CI: −0.23, 0.60) for older people participating. However, due to the small study sizes and low number of studies available, we cannot be confident about any effects. The results for other mental health and wellbeing outcomes are reported but due to little overlap in similar assessments across the studies, we could not combine them to assess the strength of evidence. There were no data about social isolation, spiritual health or sense of community. There are no long-term studies and no data on equity. We still know very little about what works and how or why. Whilst some interventions do use theories and logic to inform their development others do not. More exploration of this is needed.

Authors’ Conclusions

Commissioners and intervention developers should ensure interventions provide sufficient theoretical evidence for the logic behind the proposed intervention and should improve their consideration of equity within the interventions Research on intergenerational interventions need more consistent and agreed measures for reporting outcomes including community outcomes (core outcome sets). More understanding is needed on how best to measure ‘community’ outcomes. Research on intergenerational interventions should measure outcomes for BOTH the older and younger population engaged in the intervention—these may or may not be the same outcomes reflected in both populations. Further research is needed on the long-term impact of interventions on outcomes (whether participants need to keep being involved in an ‘intervention’ to continue to benefit) and sustainability of interventions beyond the initial funding of the research project. Supporting this our stakeholders highlighted that interventions that are initiated for research and then end (usually within a year) are not helpful.