Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41705739›Full record

ReviewInteractive journal of medical research2026

Treatment of Gender in Research on Intervention Programs Targeting Social Isolation and Loneliness Among Older Adults: Scoping Review.

Kenta Nomura, Naoto Kiguchi, Eisuke Inomata, Takeshi Nakamachi, Norikazu Kobayashi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Interactive journal of medical research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Kenta NomuraGraduate School of Rehabilitation, Mejiro University, Saitama, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4585-8882
Naoto KiguchiDepartment of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Ibaraki Prefectural University of Health Sciences, Ibaraki, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9234-0681
Eisuke InomataDepartment of Occupational Therapy, Graduate School of Human Health Science, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4538-9349
Takeshi NakamachiDepartment of Psychology and Social Welfare, Faculty of Psychology and Social Welfare, Seigakuin University, Saitama, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5234-9228
Norikazu KobayashiDepartment of Occupational Therapy, Graduate School of Human Health Science, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4680-9078

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial isolation and loneliness have considerable health implications. Research indicates that older men are generally more susceptible to social isolation compared with women, highlighting the need to integrate gender-responsive approaches in the development and implementation of interventions for mitigating social isolation and loneliness in later life.

objectiveThis study aimed to conduct a review of intervention programs targeting social isolation and loneliness, focusing on gender-specific considerations. Specifically, it aims to examine the gender composition (male-to-female ratio) of participants in intervention programs and identify and analyze intervention strategies that demonstrate gender-sensitive effectiveness.

methodsA scoping review was conducted as per the Joanna Briggs Institute manual for evidence synthesis. A comprehensive literature search, including hand searching, was conducted across 6 English-language databases, PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science, for papers and reports published in 2013-2023. The authors, country, subjects, research design, intervention method, results, and mentions of gender for each included document were presented.

resultsThe study identified 1282 papers and reports, of which 10 were selected for analysis. Only 1 study reported a higher number of male participants compared with female ones; in contrast, all other studies included predominantly female samples. The studies assessed outcomes based on 2 indicators of social isolation, 4 indicators of loneliness, and 29 other indicators. Exercise and workshops proved effective for social isolation and loneliness, while meditation and laughter therapy were effective for loneliness. The intervention with the highest percentage of male participants (264/323, 82%) was a customized meditation program. Conversely, physical activities, social support, and community-based group health classes drew more female participants. In total, 8 studies did not mention gender in the discussion section, and none considered gender-specific issues in formulating research objectives and outcomes.

conclusionsResearch on social isolation and loneliness has generally ignored the influence of gender. The review also indicated a gender bias in participant selection, with women markedly overrepresented in study samples. The study found that women tend to prefer interventions emphasizing conversations, shared experiences, and emotional exchange. In contrast, men showed the highest participation in a meditation program focused on self-dialogue, which required minimal interaction. Importantly, interventions aimed at promoting social interaction or participation are unlikely to succeed without consideration of gender-specific issues. Therefore, systematically identifying conditions necessary for effective interventions that target older men is crucial for guiding future research and program development.

trial registrationOpen Science Framework 10.17605/OSF.IO/83JQF; hhttps://osf.io/83jqf/overview.

Indexed as

genderin-personinterventionlonelinessmenolderprogramremotereviewscoping reviewsocial isolationwomen

Identifiers

PMID41705739
PMCPMC12961394

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.