ArticleSystematic reviews2025
Meaning-centred intervention for managing loneliness among community-dwelling older adults: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic Reviews of Psychosocial Interventions for Loneliness Among Older Adults in Community and Residential Care Settings: An Umbrella Review.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLoneliness can pose serious health and psychological concerns among community-dwelling older adults. Meaning-centred interventions, which aim to help individuals find meaning in their lives, appeared to alleviate loneliness among older adults. Yet, systematic evidence on the effectiveness of meaning-centred intervention and the experience among older adults towards this intervention is lacking. This review will systematically synthesise the evidence to examine the effect of meaning-centred intervention on loneliness among community-dwelling older adults.
methodsA mixed-methods systematic review (MMSR) with a convergent segregated approach will be employed according to the Joanna Briggs Institute framework for MMSRs. Relevant studies will be searched from inception to 31 December 2024 from nine databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, ProQuest Social Science, Wangfang, and Google Scholar. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods study designs will be included. Two authors will independently perform data extraction and complete risk of bias and quality assessment using recommended tools. The evidence quality will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual) guidelines approach for quantitative and qualitative studies, respectively. The phenomena of interest will be the experience of meaning-centred intervention among older adults living in the community and long-term care facilities. The primary outcome will be loneliness. Other related outcomes include meanings in life, social connections, social participation, social isolation, suicide ideation, anxiety, and depressive symptoms. DISCUSSION: The review will contribute to a comprehensive understanding of meaning-centred intervention on loneliness among community-dwelling older adults by integrating the quantitative and qualitative evidence. The findings will provide practitioners, researchers, and policy workers with insights on developing and/or adopting meaning-centred interventions for alleviating the loneliness of older adults in the community and eventually promoting healthy ageing. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD 42024614173.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.