Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31464586›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2019

Methods of identifying and recruiting older people at risk of social isolation and loneliness: a mixed methods review.

Janet Ige, Lynn Gibbons, Issy Bray, Selena Gray

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Healthcare Professionals' Perceptions of Loneliness amongst Older Adults: A Qualitative Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Janet IgeCentre for Public Health and Wellbeing, University of the West of England, Bristol, Frenchay Campus, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK.
Lynn GibbonsSouth Gloucestershire Council, Yate, UK.
Issy BrayCentre for Public Health and Wellbeing, University of the West of England, Bristol, Frenchay Campus, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK.
Selena GrayCentre for Public Health and Wellbeing, University of the West of England, Bristol, Frenchay Campus, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK. Selena.Gray@uwe.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-6257-4024

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLoneliness and social isolation are major determinants of mental wellbeing, especially among older adults. The effectiveness of interventions to address loneliness and social isolation among older adults has been questioned due to the lack of transparency in identifying and recruiting populations at risk. This paper aims to systematically review methods used to identify and recruit older people at risk of loneliness and social isolation into research studies that seek to address loneliness and social isolation.

methodsIn total, 751 studies were identified from a structured search of eleven electronic databases combined with hand searching of reference bibliography from identified studies for grey literature. Studies conducted between January 1995 and December 2017 were eligible provided they recruited community living individuals aged 50 and above at risk of social isolation or loneliness into an intervention study.

resultA total of 22 studies were deemed eligible for inclusion. Findings from these studies showed that the most common strategy for inviting people to participate in intervention studies were public-facing methods including mass media and local newspaper advertisements. The majority of participants identified this way were self-referred, and in many cases self-identified as lonely. In most cases, there was no standardised tool for defining loneliness or social isolation. However, studies that recruited via referral by recognised agencies reported higher rates of eligibility and enrolment. Referrals from primary care were only used in a few studies. Studies that included agency referral either alone or in combination with multiple forms of recruitment showed more promising recruitment rates than those that relied on only public facing methods. Further research is needed to establish the cost-effectiveness of multiple forms of referral.

conclusionFindings from this study demonstrate the need for transparency in writing up the methods used to approach, assess and enrol older adults at risk of becoming socially isolated. None of the intervention studies included in this review justified their recruitment strategies. The ability of researchers to share best practice relies greatly on the transparency of research.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansLonelinessMaleMental HealthMiddle AgedSocial IsolationLonelinessOlder adultsRecruitmentSocial isolation

Identifiers

PMID31464586
PMCPMC6714404

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.