Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36893335›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of public health2023

The effectiveness of interventions to prevent loneliness and social isolation in the community-dwelling and old population: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis.

Ludwig Grillich, Viktoria Titscher, Pauline Klingenstein, Eva Kostial, Robert Emprechtinger, Irma Klerings, Isolde Sommer, Jana Nikitin, Anton-Rupert Laireiter

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ludwig GrillichDepartment for Evidence-Based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems an der Donau, Austria.
Viktoria TitscherDepartment for Evidence-Based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems an der Donau, Austria.
Pauline KlingensteinDepartment for Evidence-Based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems an der Donau, Austria.
Eva Kostial"Tut gut!" Gesundheitsvorsorge GmbH, Sankt Pölten, Austria.
Robert EmprechtingerFaculty for Health and Medicine, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems an der Donau, Austria.
Irma KleringsDepartment for Evidence-Based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems an der Donau, Austria.
Isolde SommerDepartment for Evidence-Based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems an der Donau, Austria.
Jana NikitinDepartment of Development and Educational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Anton-Rupert LaireiterDepartment of Clinical and Health Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Universität für Weiterbildung Krems · ATUniversity of Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLoneliness and social isolation have comparable health effects to widely acknowledged and established risk factors. Although old people are particularly affected, the effectiveness of interventions to prevent and/or mitigate social isolation and loneliness in the community-dwelling older adults is unclear. The aim of this review of reviews was to pool the findings of systematic reviews (SRs) addressing the question of effectiveness.

methodsOvid MEDLINE®, Health Evidence, Epistemonikos and Global Health (EBSCO) were searched from January 2017 to November 2021. Two reviewers independently assessed each SR in two consecutive steps based on previously defined eligibility criteria and appraised the methodological quality using a measurement tool to assess SRs 2, AMSTAR 2. One author extracted data from both SRs and eligible studies; another checked this. We conducted meta-analyses to pool the study results. We report the results of the random-effects and common-effect models.

resultsWe identified five SRs containing a total of 30 eligible studies, 16 with a low or moderate risk of bias. Our random-effects meta-analysis indicates an overall SMD effect of 0.63 [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.10 to 1.36] for loneliness and was unable to detect an overall effect of the interventions on social support [SMD: 0.00; 95% CI: -0.11 to 0.12]. DISCUSSION: The results show interventions can potentially reduce loneliness in the non-institutionalized, community-dwelling and older population living at home. As confidence in the evidence is low, rigorous evaluation is recommended. REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of SRs (PROSPERO): Registration number: CRD42021255625.

Indexed as

Independent LivingLonelinessAgedHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicRisk FactorsSocial IsolationSystematic Reviews as TopicLonelinessolder adultsreview of reviewssocial isolation

Identifiers

PMID36893335
PMCPMC10263264
OpenAlexW4323656393

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.