Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42297454›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

Loneliness and social isolation at the emergency department: a scoping review protocol.

Will Lung Chan, Zesen Gao, Arthur Liu Chuxi, Timothy Rainer, Wilson Wing Chung Tang, Yu Serena Sheung Wing, Zohar Lederman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 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

7 authors.

Will Lung ChanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7133-8103
Zesen GaoMedical Library, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-1734-5094
Arthur Liu ChuxiLKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Timothy RainerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Wilson Wing Chung TangMedical Library, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Yu Serena Sheung WingLKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Zohar LedermanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, Hong Kong, Hong Kong zoharlederman@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0547-1066

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionLoneliness and social isolation are critical public health issues linked to significant adverse health outcomes and increased healthcare utilisation, including visits to the emergency department (ED). The ED often serves as a primary societal safety net, providing care for vulnerable populations who may be disproportionately affected by these conditions. In fact, loneliness and social isolation might be the underlying reasons they presented to the ED in the first place either consciously or not. For such individuals, the ED encounter may represent a rare point of human contact, yet the stressful and depersonalising nature of the ED environment may paradoxically exacerbate their sense of isolation. Furthermore, ED staff may lack the training and awareness of the scope of the problem to properly screen for loneliness and address it. Yet, the compounded impact of the ED experience on lonely or socially isolated patients and the relationship between loneliness and healthcare utilisation remains poorly understood. This paper presents a protocol for a scoping review designed to systematically map the existing evidence on the experiences of these patients and the perspectives of the clinicians who care for them. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be conducted following the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The findings will be reported according to the Extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews (PRISMA-S; see online supplemental file 1). A comprehensive search will be performed across five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CNKI) and grey literature sources. Studies published in English or Chinese that address loneliness or social isolation in the ED context, from the perspective of adult or paediatric patients or clinical staff, will be included. A novel, artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted screening process will be utilised for initial relevance assessment, followed by full manual screening and data extraction by two independent reviewers to ensure rigour and mitigate bias. Findings will be synthesised using a narrative approach and thematic analysis to identify key concepts, themes and existing gaps in the literature. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this study synthesises data from previously published literature, it does not require formal ethical approval. The findings will be disseminated through a manuscript submitted to a peer-reviewed, open-access journal. The aim is to provide an evidence-based roadmap to guide future research, inform policy and support the development of interventions designed to improve care and outcomes for this vulnerable population within the acute care setting. REGISTRATION NUMBER: The review has been registered at Open Science Framework, DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/MBVSR.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalLonelinessSocial IsolationEmergency Room VisitsHumansResearch DesignScoping Reviews as TopicACCIDENT & EMERGENCY MEDICINEMENTAL HEALTHPUBLIC HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID42297454
PMCPMC13295767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.