Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34085942›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2021

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Digital Technology Interventions to Reduce Loneliness in Older Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah, David Nogueras, Hugo Cornelis van Woerden, Vasiliki Kiparoglou

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

67 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Better Together: Technology-Use Gaps and Loneliness in Older Adults.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Observational

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Syed Ghulam Sarwar ShahNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5713-3686
David NoguerasEvZein Limited, Holley Crescent, Headington, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1267-3101
Hugo Cornelis van WoerdenPublic Health Agency Northern Ireland, Belfast, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3382-1684
Vasiliki KiparoglouNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9886-7902

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLoneliness is a serious public health issue, and its burden is increasing in many countries. Loneliness affects social, physical, and mental health, and it is associated with multimorbidity and premature mortality. In addition to social interventions, a range of digital technology interventions (DTIs) are being used to tackle loneliness. However, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of DTIs in reducing loneliness, especially in adults. The effectiveness of DTIs in reducing loneliness needs to be systematically assessed.

objectiveThe objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of DTIs in reducing loneliness in older adults.

methodsWe conducted electronic searches in PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science for empirical studies published in English from January 1, 2010, to July 31, 2019. The study selection criteria included interventional studies that used any type of DTIs to reduce loneliness in adults (aged ≥18 years) with a minimum intervention duration of 3 months and follow-up measurements at least 3 months after the intervention. Two researchers independently screened articles and extracted data using the PICO (participant, intervention, comparator, and outcome) framework. The primary outcome measure was loneliness. Loneliness scores in both the intervention and control groups at baseline and at follow-up at 3, 4, 6, and 12 months after the intervention were extracted. Data were analyzed via narrative synthesis and meta-analysis using RevMan (The Cochrane Collaboration) software.

resultsA total of 6 studies were selected from 4939 screened articles. These studies included 1 before and after study and 5 clinical trials (4 randomized clinical trials and 1 quasi-experimental study). All of these studies enrolled a total of 646 participants (men: n=154, 23.8%; women: n=427, 66.1%; no gender information: n=65, 10.1%) with an average age of 73-78 years (SD 6-11). Five clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis, and by using the random effects model, standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated for each trial and pooled across studies at the 3-, 4-, and 6-month follow-ups. The overall effect estimates showed no statistically significant difference in the effectiveness of DTIs compared with that of usual care or non-DTIs at follow-up at 3 months (SMD 0.02; 95% CI -0.36 to 0.40; P=.92), 4 months (SMD -1.11; 95% CI -2.60 to 0.38; P=.14), and 6 months (SMD -0.11; 95% CI -0.54 to 0.32; P=.61). The quality of evidence was very low to moderate in these trials.

conclusionsOur meta-analysis shows no evidence supporting the effectiveness of DTIs in reducing loneliness in older adults. Future research may consider randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes and longer durations for both the interventions and follow-ups. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032455.

Indexed as

Digital TechnologyLonelinessAgedFemaleHumansMaleQuality of LifeTime Factorsdigital technologyeffectivenessefficacyevidencelonelinessmeta-analysisolder peoplesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34085942
PMCPMC8214187

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.