PROTOCOL: In‐person interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness: An evidence and gap map

Welch, Vivian; Ghogomu, Elizabeth Tanjong; Dowling, Sierra; Choo, Wan Yuen; Yunus, Raudah Mohd; Mohd, Tengku Amatullah Madeehah T; Haitas, Niobe; Bomze, Sivan; Dahrouge, Simone; García, Eva María Pérez; Holt‐Lunstad, Julianne; Lasgaard, Mathias; Lim, Michelle H.; Mulligan, Kate; Salzwedel, Douglas M; Qualter, Pamela; Hébert, Paul C.; Mikton, Christopher

doi:10.1002/cl2.1340

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Policymakers should also ensure that the work they quote includes study populations that are well-represented in all relevant demographics and that the research is able to make causal claims about how loneliness impacts health. The World Health Organisation (WHO) and the European Union have identified the limits of their own knowledge and skills in this field, commissioning experts to write evidence gap reports [ 66 , 67 ] or GB and DK for example have had loneliness researchers help write their vision and strategy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The EU has taken the lead as the first supranational union to address loneliness amongst its member states by recently organizing various roundtables and conferences around loneliness [ 70 ]. Globally, WHO has recently published an evidence gap report on in-person interventions for reducing social isolation and loneliness [ 67 ]. Lastly, we argue that policies would be meaningless if there are no concrete funding streams allocated towards evidence generation, intervention design and implementation and the evaluation thereof.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Addressing loneliness and social isolation in 52 countries: a scoping review of National policies

Goldman,

Khanna,

El Asmar

et al. 2024

BMC Public Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Even prior to the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was ample evidence that loneliness and social isolation negatively impacted physical and mental health, employability, and are a financial burden on the state. In response, there has been significant policy-level attention on tackling loneliness. The objective of this scoping review was to conduct a loneliness policy landscape analysis across 52 countries of the UN European country groups. Our policy analysis sought to highlight commonalities and differences between the different national approaches to manage loneliness, with the goal to provide actionable recommendations for the consideration of policymakers wishing to develop, expand or review existing loneliness policies. Methods We searched governmental websites using the Google search engine for publicly available documents related to loneliness and social isolation. Seventy-eight documents were identified in total, from which 23 documents were retained. Exclusion of documents was based on predetermined criteria. A structured content analysis approach was used to capture key information from the policy documents. Contextual data were captured in a configuration matrix to highlight common and unique themes. Results We could show that most policies describe loneliness as a phenomenon that was addressed to varying degrees in different domains such as social, health, geographical, economic and political. Limited evidence was found regarding funding for suggested interventions. We synthesised actionable recommendations for the consideration of policy makers focusing on the use of language, prioritisation of interventions, revisiting previous campaigns, sharing best practice across borders, setting out a vision, evaluating interventions, and the need for the rapid and sustainable scalability of interventions. Conclusions Our study provides the first overview of the national loneliness policy landscape, highlighting the increasing prioritisation of loneliness and social isolation as a major public health and societal issue. Our findings suggest that policymakers can sustain this momentum and strengthen their strategies by incorporating rigorous, evidence-based intervention evaluations and fostering international collaborations for knowledge sharing. We believe that policymakers can more effectively address loneliness by directing funds to develop and implement interventions that impact the individual, the community and society.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing loneliness and social isolation in 52 countries: a scoping review of National policies

Goldman,

Khanna,

El Asmar

et al. 2024

BMC Public Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We followed the Campbell Collaboration guidance for producing an evidence and gap map (White et al, 2020) described in our protocol (Welch et al, 2023).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

In‐person interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness: An evidence and gap map

Welch,

Ghogomu,

Dowling

et al. 2024

Campbell Systematic Reviews

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSocial isolation and loneliness can occur in all age groups, and they are linked to increased mortality and poorer health outcomes. There is a growing body of research indicating inconsistent findings on the effectiveness of interventions aiming to alleviate social isolation and loneliness. Hence the need to facilitate the discoverability of research on these interventions.ObjectivesTo map available evidence on the effects of in‐person interventions aimed at mitigating social isolation and/or loneliness across all age groups and settings.Search MethodsThe following databases were searched from inception up to 17 February 2022 with no language restrictions: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, EBM Reviews—Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, APA PsycInfo via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCO, EBSCO (all databases except CINAHL), Global Index Medicus, ProQuest (all databases), ProQuest ERIC, Web of Science, Korean Citation Index, Russian Science Citation Index, and SciELO Citation Index via Clarivate, and Elsevier Scopus.Selection CriteriaTitles, abstracts, and full texts of potentially eligible articles identified were screened independently by two reviewers for inclusion following the outlined eligibility criteria.Data Collection and AnalysisWe developed and pilot tested a data extraction code set in Eppi‐Reviewer. Data was individually extracted and coded. We used the AMSTAR2 tool to assess the quality of reviews. However, the quality of the primary studies was not assessed.Main ResultsA total of 513 articles (421 primary studies and 92 systematic reviews) were included in this evidence and gap map which assessed the effectiveness of in‐person interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness. Most (68%) of the reviews were classified as critically low quality, while less than 5% were classified as high or moderate quality. Most reviews looked at interpersonal delivery and community‐based delivery interventions, especially interventions for changing cognition led by a health professional and group activities, respectively. Loneliness, wellbeing, and depression/anxiety were the most assessed outcomes. Most research was conducted in high‐income countries, concentrated in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia, with none from low‐income countries. Major gaps were identified in societal level and community‐based delivery interventions that address policies and community structures, respectively. Less than 5% of included reviews assessed process indicators or implementation outcomes. Similar patterns of evidence and gaps were found in primary studies. All age groups were represented but more reviews and primary studies focused on older adults (≥60 years, 63%) compared to young people (≤24 years, 34%). Two thirds described how at‐risk populations were identified and even fewer assessed differences in effect across equity factors for populations experiencing inequities.Authors’ ConclusionsThere is growing evidence that social isolation and loneliness are public health concerns. This evidence and gap map shows the available evidence, at the time of the search, on the effectiveness of in‐person interventions at reducing social isolation and loneliness across all ages and settings. Despite a large body of research, with much of it published in more recent years, it is unevenly distributed geographically and across types of interventions and outcomes. Most of the systematic reviews are of critically low quality, indicating the need for high quality reviews. This map can guide funders and researchers to consider the areas in which the evidence is lacking and to address these gaps as future research priorities.

show abstract

“…13 For inperson interventions on loneliness and social isolation across all age groups, 421 studies and 92 systematic reviews were identified. 14 We now need an overall synthesis of the findings from intervention studies to be undertaken with an implementation lens to derive clear recommendations of which interventions work, for whom, and in what contexts.…”

Section: C) Identifying Effective Interventions For Implementation At...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15 Access to these tools could inform evidence-based policy and programs and help direct funding towards research priorities. 13,14 Priority 2 -Adopting a whole-ofsystems approach…”

Section: Priority 1 -Strengthening the Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing loneliness and social isolation as global health challenges: taking three priority actions

Lim,

Qualter,

Ding

et al. 2023

Public Health Res Pract.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PROTOCOL: In‐person interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness: An evidence and gap map

Abstract: This is the protocol for an evidence and gap map. The objectives are as follows: This EGM aims to map available evidence on the effects of in‐person interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness across all age groups in all settings.

Cited by 5 publications

References 66 publications

Addressing loneliness and social isolation in 52 countries: a scoping review of National policies

Addressing loneliness and social isolation in 52 countries: a scoping review of National policies

In‐person interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness: An evidence and gap map

Advancing loneliness and social isolation as global health challenges: taking three priority actions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About