Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35549899›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2022

Digital interventions for subjective and objective social isolation among individuals with mental health conditions: a scoping review.

Gigi Toh, Eiluned Pearce, John Vines, Sarah Ikhtabi, Mary Birken, Alexandra Pitman, Sonia Johnson

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors.

Gigi TohDivision of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1W 7NF, UK. g.toh.16@alumni.ucl.ac.uk.
Eiluned PearceDivision of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1W 7NF, UK.
John VinesSchool of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Crichton St, Newington, Edinburgh, UK.
Sarah IkhtabiDivision of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1W 7NF, UK.
Mary BirkenDivision of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1W 7NF, UK.
Alexandra PitmanDivision of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1W 7NF, UK.
Sonia JohnsonDivision of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1W 7NF, UK. s.johnson@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0802441
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial isolation encompasses subjective and objective concepts. Both are associated with negative health consequences and are more prevalent among people with mental health problems than among the general population. To alleviate social isolation, digital interventions have potential as accessible alternatives or adjuncts to face-to-face interventions. This scoping review aimed to describe the types of digital interventions evaluated for feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness in alleviating social isolation among individuals with mental health problems, and to present an overview of the quantitative evidence yielded to inform future intervention design.

methodsWe searched five electronic databases for quantitative and mixed methods studies published between January 2000 and July 2020. Studies were included if they evaluated digital interventions for individuals with mental health conditions, had subjective and/or objective social isolation as their primary outcome, or as one of their outcomes if no primary outcome was specified. Feasibility studies were included if feasibility outcomes were the primary outcomes and social isolation was among their secondary outcomes. A narrative synthesis was conducted to present our findings. The protocol was registered on Open Science Framework (doi: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CNX8A ).

resultsThirty-two studies were included for our review: 16 feasibility studies, seven single-group studies and nine effectiveness trials. There was great variation in the interventions, study designs and sample populations. Interventions included web-based programmes, phone-based programmes, blended interventions, socially assistive robots and virtual reality interventions. Many were feasibility studies, or otherwise not fully powered to detect an effect if one were present, thus preventing clear conclusions about clinical effectiveness. Satisfactory feasibility outcomes indicated potential for future trials to assess these interventions.

conclusionOur scoping review identified a range of digital approaches utilized to alleviate social isolation among individuals with mental health disorders. Conclusions regarding clinical effectiveness cannot be reached due to variability of approaches and lack of large-scale randomized controlled trials. To make clear recommendations for digital social isolation interventions, future research needs to be based on rigorous methods and larger samples. Future studies should also focus on utilizing theory-driven approaches and improving existing approaches to advance the field.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersMental HealthHumansSocial IsolationDigital interventionsLonelinessMental health conditionsSocial isolationTechnology

Identifiers

PMID35549899
PMCPMC9098213

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.