Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38200279›Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2024

Interventions to Reduce Loneliness in Community-Living Older Adults: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Paul G Shekelle, Isomi M Miake-Lye, Meron M Begashaw, Marika S Booth, Bethany Myers, Nicole Lowery, William H Shrank

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. [PAPPS update on older people 2024].Atencion primaria · 2024
    Guideline
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

7 authors.

Paul G ShekelleGreater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA. paul.shekelle@va.gov.
Isomi M Miake-LyeGreater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Meron M BegashawGreater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Marika S BoothRAND Corporation, Southern California Evidence-Based Practice Center, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Bethany MyersLouise M. Darling Biomedical Library, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Nicole LoweryHumana Inc, Lexington, KY, USA.
William H ShrankHumana Inc, Lexington, KY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe problem of loneliness has garnered increased attention from policymakers, payors, and providers due to higher rates during the pandemic, particularly among seniors. Prior systematic reviews have in general not been able to reach conclusions about effectiveness of interventions.

methodsComputerized databases were searched using broad terms such as "loneliness" or "lonely" or "social isolation" or "social support" from Jan 1, 2011 to June 23, 2021. We reference mined existing systematic reviews for additional and older studies. The Social Interventions Research & Evaluation Network database and Google were searched for gray literature on Feb 4, 2022. Eligible studies were RCTs and observational studies of interventions to reduce loneliness in community-living adults that used a validated loneliness scale; studies from low- or middle-income countries were excluded, and studies were excluded if restricted to populations where all persons had the same disease (such as loneliness in persons with dementia).

resultsA total of 5971 titles were reviewed and 60 studies were included in the analysis, 36 RCTs and 24 observational studies. Eleven RCTs and 5 observational studies provided moderate certainty evidence that group-based treatment was associated with reduced loneliness (standardized mean difference for RCTs =  - 0.27, 95% CI - 0.48, - 0.08). Five RCTs and 5 observational studies provided moderate certainty evidence that internet training was associated with reduced loneliness (standardized mean difference for RCTs =  - 0.22, 95% CI - 0.30, - 0.14). Low certainty evidence suggested that group exercises may be associated with very small reductions in loneliness. Evidence was insufficient to reach conclusions about group-based activities, individual in-person interactions, internet-delivered interventions, and telephone-delivered interventions. DISCUSSION: Low-to-moderate certainty evidence exists that group-based treatments, internet training, and possibly group exercises are associated with modest reductions in loneliness in community-living older adults. These findings can inform the design of supplemental benefits and the implementation of evidence-based interventions to address loneliness. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO ( CRD42021272305 ).

Indexed as

Independent LivingLonelinessAgedHumansSocial IsolationSocial Supportlonelinessmeta-analysissocial determinants of health

Identifiers

PMID38200279
PMCPMC11074098

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.