The effectiveness of technology interventions in reducing social isolation and loneliness among community-dwelling older people: A mixed methods systematic review

R.C. Ambagtsheer , K. Borg , L Townsin , M.A. Pinero de Plaza , L.M. O'Brien , R. Kunwar , M.T. Lawless
{"title":"The effectiveness of technology interventions in reducing social isolation and loneliness among community-dwelling older people: A mixed methods systematic review","authors":"R.C. Ambagtsheer ,&nbsp;K. Borg ,&nbsp;L Townsin ,&nbsp;M.A. Pinero de Plaza ,&nbsp;L.M. O'Brien ,&nbsp;R. Kunwar ,&nbsp;M.T. Lawless","doi":"10.1016/j.aggp.2024.100008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>This study reviewed technology-based interventions targeting social isolation and loneliness in community-dwelling older adults. Specific aims were to identify theoretical perspectives, assess intervention effectiveness, and identify barriers and enablers of these interventions.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A mixed methods systematic review of intervention studies was conducted, searching six databases (PubMed, PsychINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, ACM and Embase). Peer-reviewed articles describing communicative technology-based intervention studies with qualitative, quantitative, mixed-method, or observational designs, conducted in community settings with older adults (aged ≥65 years), where social isolation and/or loneliness were key outcome measures, were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Nineteen studies were included in the review. Theory integration was rare in these studies’ research designs. Most were small-scale pilot or feasibility studies, displaying diverse designs, small sample sizes, and variable MMAT-assessed quality. The studies highlighted significant barriers such as resource demands, participant health, literacy, and technical challenges.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Significant resource demands continue to impede technology-based interventions addressing social isolation and loneliness in older populations. Future study designs must adapt to overcome these challenges, tailoring approaches to marginalised and often frail communities these interventions aim to support.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100119,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics Plus","volume":"1 1","pages":"Article 100008"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950307824000055/pdfft?md5=a10c74659d835197f6528823269a6976&pid=1-s2.0-S2950307824000055-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics Plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950307824000055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

This study reviewed technology-based interventions targeting social isolation and loneliness in community-dwelling older adults. Specific aims were to identify theoretical perspectives, assess intervention effectiveness, and identify barriers and enablers of these interventions.

Methods

A mixed methods systematic review of intervention studies was conducted, searching six databases (PubMed, PsychINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, ACM and Embase). Peer-reviewed articles describing communicative technology-based intervention studies with qualitative, quantitative, mixed-method, or observational designs, conducted in community settings with older adults (aged ≥65 years), where social isolation and/or loneliness were key outcome measures, were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).

Results

Nineteen studies were included in the review. Theory integration was rare in these studies’ research designs. Most were small-scale pilot or feasibility studies, displaying diverse designs, small sample sizes, and variable MMAT-assessed quality. The studies highlighted significant barriers such as resource demands, participant health, literacy, and technical challenges.

Conclusion

Significant resource demands continue to impede technology-based interventions addressing social isolation and loneliness in older populations. Future study designs must adapt to overcome these challenges, tailoring approaches to marginalised and often frail communities these interventions aim to support.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
技术干预在减少社区老年人社会隔离和孤独感方面的有效性:混合方法系统回顾
目标本研究对针对社区老年人的社会隔离和孤独感的技术干预措施进行了综述。具体目的是确定理论视角、评估干预效果以及识别这些干预措施的障碍和促进因素。方法通过检索六个数据库(PubMed、PsychINFO、Cochrane Library、CINAHL、ACM 和 Embase),采用混合方法对干预研究进行了系统综述。同行评议的文章描述了基于交流技术的干预研究,这些研究采用定性、定量、混合方法或观察设计,在社区环境中针对老年人(年龄≥65 岁)进行,以社会隔离和/或孤独感为主要结果测量指标。研究质量采用混合方法评估工具(MMAT)进行评估。在这些研究的研究设计中,理论整合并不多见。大多数研究都是小规模的试点或可行性研究,显示出设计多样化、样本量小、MMAT 评估质量参差不齐等特点。这些研究强调了资源需求、参与者健康、文化水平和技术挑战等重大障碍。未来的研究设计必须调整以克服这些挑战,并针对这些干预措施所要支持的边缘化且往往虚弱的社区量身定制方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Negative attitudes toward the majority and perceived hostile and modern prejudices: Focus on older adults and people with disabilities Cognitive decline gap between male and female in Indian context: Examining the contribution of underlying factors using non-linear decomposition analysis Do healthy older adults use SNS? Focus on LINE, Facebook, Twitter (now X), and Instagram “There's a lot of factors”: Researcher reflections on using I-poetry to empathetically understand vaccine hesitant individuals The link between periodontitis and Alzheimer's disease – Brunei context
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1