Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35967719›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022

The effectiveness of remote delivered intervention for loneliness reduction in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zhengke Fu, Mengsi Yan, Chao Meng

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Loneliness as a Public Health Challenge: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis to Inform Policy and Practice.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhengke FuDepartment of Computational Communication, School of Media and Law, Ningbo Tech University, Ningbo, China.
Mengsi YanDepartment of Japanese Language Study, School of Humanity, Ningbo University of Finance and Economics, Ningbo, China.
Chao MengDepartment of Computational Communication, School of Media and Law, Ningbo Tech University, Ningbo, China.
Ningbo University of Technology · CNNingbo University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Remotely delivered intervention is widely applied to loneliness treatment in older adults, but the effect is controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of remotely delivered intervention on loneliness using a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: The PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (EBSCO) databases were searched for studies, the search ended on 7 July 2021. Thirteen randomized controlled trials of remotely delivered intervention compared with usual care, brief contact, or no intervention for loneliness were included. A random-effects model measured estimation of loneliness reduction. Furthermore, standardized mean differences (SMDs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), publication bias, and heterogeneity were calculated. Subgroup analysis was used to explore the factors that might affect the treatment effects. Results: The evidence of remotely delivered intervention on loneliness reduction was certain (SMD = -0.41 [95% CI, -0.70 to -0.13]). Media subgroup analysis supported the effectiveness of intervention delivered by video call (SMD = -0.54 [95% CI, -0.83 to -0.25]); treatment strategy subgroup analysis found evidence to support the effectiveness of increasing social support and maladaptive social cognition treatment strategy (SMD = -0.47 [95% CI, -0.77 to -0.18] and SMD = -1.04 [95% CI, -1.98 to -0.10], respectively); participants subgroup analysis shown the effectiveness of intervention for older adults living in LTC and social isolation (SMD = -1.40 [95% CI, -2.43 to -0.36] and SMD = -0.55 [95% CI, -0.74 to -0.36], respectively); group format subgroup analysis testified the effectiveness of intervention carried out in individual format (SMD = -0.39 [95% CI, -0.71 to -0.07]); measurement time points subgroup analysis found the positive effect of intervention at 3 months and 3 to 6 months stage (SMD = -0.33 [95% CI, -0.52 to -0.14] and SMD = -0.32 [95% CI, -0.57 to -0.07], respectively). Significant publication bias was detected ( Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that remotely delivered intervention can reduce loneliness in older adults, and it appears to be affected by media type, treatment strategy, participants characteristics, group format, and measurement time points.

Indexed as

lonelinessmeta-analysisolder adultsremote delivered interventionsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35967719
PMCPMC9372715
OpenAlexW4288516886

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.