Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38730198›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of behavioral medicine2024

The Assessment of Social Isolation and Loneliness in Cancer Patients and Survivors in the Pre-COVID-19 Period: A Systematic Review.

Allison Marziliano, Alla Byakova, Priya Patel, Saori W Herman, Michael A Diefenbach

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of behavioral medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Loneliness in prostate cancer survivors.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026
    Article
  2. The association between loneliness and quality of life in cancer survivors: All of Us research program.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

5 authors.

Allison MarzilianoFeinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Institute of Health System Science, Northwell Health, Manhasset, USA. amarzilian@northwell.edu.
Alla ByakovaHospice and Palliative Care, Mayo Clinic Health System, Mankato, USA.
Priya PatelFeinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Institute of Health System Science, Northwell Health, Manhasset, USA.
Saori W HermanDonald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hofstra University, Hempstead, USA.
Michael A DiefenbachFeinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Institute of Health System Science, Northwell Health, Manhasset, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the context of cancer research, identifying social isolation and loneliness is a priority given how both exacerbate poor outcomes and lead to increased mortality in oncological populations. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify all quantitative instruments that have been used to assess either social isolation or loneliness in patients previously or currently diagnosed with cancer in the pre-COVID-19 period.

methodPubMed (Web), Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched on August 22, 2019. All databases were searched from inception with no filters applied. The search strategies included terms that captured the following concepts: instruments/tools, social isolation or loneliness, and cancer.

resultsA total of 289 titles/abstracts were returned. Upon review, 114 titles/abstracts were deemed to be potentially eligible and the full text was retrieved. Of the 114 full texts, 69 articles met inclusion criteria and comprised the final sample. Publications span years 1980 through 2019, with the majority (71%) occurring in the last decade prior to this review, between 2009 and 2019. Average age of the study samples, with few exceptions, was often over 50 years old. Many studies used all-female samples, while only one study used an all-male sample. The most common cancer diagnosis of participants was breast cancer. The most common measure was the UCLA Loneliness Scale, used in 22 studies. Most measures we identified were used only once, and 11 measures were used 2-3 times. When the information was given, response ranges were always Likert-type scales most often ranging from 1-4 or 1-5, and sometimes from 1-10 possible response options. In terms of psychometrics, test-retest reliability and validity were rarely reported; by contrast, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was reported more than half of the time (60.9%).

conclusionWhen selecting a measure to assess loneliness in cancer populations, the UCLA Loneliness Scale is both psychometrically strong and versatile across patients with different cancers, ages, and racial backgrounds. When selecting a measure to assess social isolation in cancer populations, both the PROMIS-SF V 2.0 social isolation and the Berkman-Syme Network Index are brief and have been used in patients with non-White racial backgrounds.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsCOVID-19LonelinessNeoplasmsSocial IsolationFemaleHumansCancerLonelinessMeasurementSocial isolation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.