Putting Life in Years (PLINY): a randomised controlled trial and mixed-methods process evaluation of a telephone friendship intervention to improve mental well-being in independently living older people

Interventions to Reduce Loneliness in Community-Living Older Adults: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The problem of loneliness has garnered increased attention from policymakers, payors, and providers due to higher rates during the pandemic, particularly among seniors. Prior systematic reviews have in general not been able to reach conclusions about effectiveness of interventions.

METHODS

Computerized databases were searched using broad terms such as "loneliness" or "lonely" or "social isolation" or "social support" from Jan 1, 2011 to June 23, 2021. We reference mined existing systematic reviews for additional and older studies. The Social Interventions Research & Evaluation Network database and Google were searched for gray literature on Feb 4, 2022. Eligible studies were RCTs and observational studies of interventions to reduce loneliness in community-living adults that used a validated loneliness scale; studies from low- or middle-income countries were excluded, and studies were excluded if restricted to populations where all persons had the same disease (such as loneliness in persons with dementia).

RESULTS

A total of 5971 titles were reviewed and 60 studies were included in the analysis, 36 RCTs and 24 observational studies. Eleven RCTs and 5 observational studies provided moderate certainty evidence that group-based treatment was associated with reduced loneliness (standardized mean difference for RCTs =  - 0.27, 95% CI - 0.48, - 0.08). Five RCTs and 5 observational studies provided moderate certainty evidence that internet training was associated with reduced loneliness (standardized mean difference for RCTs =  - 0.22, 95% CI - 0.30, - 0.14). Low certainty evidence suggested that group exercises may be associated with very small reductions in loneliness. Evidence was insufficient to reach conclusions about group-based activities, individual in-person interactions, internet-delivered interventions, and telephone-delivered interventions.

DISCUSSION

Low-to-moderate certainty evidence exists that group-based treatments, internet training, and possibly group exercises are associated with modest reductions in loneliness in community-living older adults. These findings can inform the design of supplemental benefits and the implementation of evidence-based interventions to address loneliness.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO ( CRD42021272305 ).

A systematic scoping review of community-based interventions for the prevention of mental ill-health and the promotion of mental health in older adults in the UK

BACKGROUND

Mental health concerns in older adults are common, with increasing age-related risks to physical health, mobility and social isolation. Community-based approaches are a key focus of public health strategy in the UK, and may reduce the impact of these risks, protecting mental health and promoting wellbeing. We conducted a review of UK community-based interventions to understand the types of intervention studied and mental health/wellbeing impacts reported.

METHOD

We conducted a scoping review of the literature, systematically searching six electronic databases (2000-2020) to identify academic studies of any non-clinical community intervention to improve mental health or wellbeing outcomes for older adults. Data were extracted, grouped by population targeted, intervention type, and outcomes reported, and synthesised according to a framework categorising community actions targeting older adults.

RESULTS

In total, 1,131 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and 54 included in the final synthesis. Example interventions included: link workers; telephone helplines; befriending; digital support services; group social activities. These were grouped into: connector services, gateway services/approaches, direct interventions and systems approaches. These interventions aimed to address key risk factors: loneliness, social isolation, being a caregiver and living with long-term health conditions. Outcome measurement varied greatly, confounding strong evidence in favour of particular intervention types.

CONCLUSION

The literature is wide-ranging in focus and methodology. Greater specificity and consistency in outcome measurement are required to evidence effectiveness - no single category of intervention yet stands out as 'promising'. More robust evidence on the active components of interventions to promote older adult's mental health is required.

The Effectiveness of Technology-Based Interventions for Reducing Loneliness in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective: To systematically analyze the effectiveness of technology-based interventions for reducing loneliness in older adults.

Methods: We searched relevant electronic databases from inception to April 2021, which included Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, SpringerLink, EMBASE, CNKI, and Wanfang. The following criteria were used: (i) study design—randomized controlled trial (RCT) designs, (ii) people—older adults (aged ≥ 60 years), (iii) intervention—technology-based interventions in which a core component involved the use of technology to reduce loneliness in older adults; and (iv) outcome—reduction of loneliness level in terms of rating scale scores. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. A third reviewer resolved any conflicts. The Cochrane Collaboration's bias assessment tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias for the included studies, and Review Manager 5.4 software was used for the meta-analysis. A random effects model was adopted to measure estimates of loneliness reduction, and standard mean differences (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for each intervention-control contrast, and the I² statistic was applied to examine heterogeneity.

Results: A total of 391 participants from six RCTs were included in the review. Of these, three studies were rated as low-quality, and the remaining three were rated as moderate-quality studies. The meta-analysis showed that the evidence regarding the effects on loneliness of technology-based interventions compared with control groups was uncertain, and suggested that technology-based interventions resulted in little to no difference in loneliness reduction compared to control groups (SMD = −0.08, 95% CI −0.33 to 0.17, p = 0.53). Two types of technology-based interventions were identified: smartphone-based video calls and computer-based training with Internet usage. The subgroup analysis found low-quality evidence to support the effectiveness of both intervention types (SMD = −0.01, 95% CI −0.25 to 0.24, p = 0.95, and SMD = −0.38, 95% CI −0.19, 0.64, p = 0.47, respectively).

Conclusions: We found no current evidence to support that technology-based interventions were effective compared to different control conditions in reducing loneliness in older adults. This suggests that more research is needed to investigate the effects of technology-based interventions on loneliness in older adults.

Interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness during COVID-19 physical distancing measures: A rapid systematic review

BACKGROUND

A significant proportion of the worldwide population is at risk of social isolation and loneliness as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to identify effective interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness that are compatible with COVID-19 shielding and social distancing measures.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In this rapid systematic review, we searched six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and SCOPUS) from inception to April 2020 for systematic reviews appraising interventions for loneliness and/or social isolation. Primary studies from those reviews were eligible if they included: 1) participants in a non-hospital setting; 2) interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness that would be feasible during COVID-19 shielding measures; 3) a relevant control group; and 4) quantitative measures of social isolation, social support or loneliness. At least two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Downs and Black checklist. Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42020178654. We identified 45 RCTs and 13 non-randomised controlled trials; none were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The nature, type, and potential effectiveness of interventions varied greatly. Effective interventions for loneliness include psychological therapies such as mindfulness, lessons on friendship, robotic pets, and social facilitation software. Few interventions improved social isolation. Overall, 37 of 58 studies were of "Fair" quality, as measured by the Downs & Black checklist. The main study limitations identified were the inclusion of studies of variable quality; the applicability of our findings to the entire population; and the current poor understanding of the types of loneliness and isolation experienced by different groups affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

Many effective interventions involved cognitive or educational components, or facilitated communication between peers. These interventions may require minor modifications to align with COVID-19 shielding/social distancing measures. Future high-quality randomised controlled trials conducted under shielding/social distancing constraints are urgently needed.

Challenges in the design, planning and implementation of trials evaluating group interventions

Background

Group interventions are interventions delivered to groups of people rather than to individuals and are used in healthcare for mental health recovery, behaviour change, peer support, self-management and/or health education. Evaluating group interventions in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) presents trialists with a set of practical problems, which are not present in RCTs of one-to-one interventions and which may not be immediately obvious.

Methods

Case-based approach summarising Sheffield trials unit’s experience in the design and implementation of five group interventions. We reviewed participant recruitment and attrition, facilitator training and attrition, attendance at the group sessions, group size and fidelity aspects across five RCTs.

Results

Median recruitment across the five trials was 3.2 (range 1.7–21.0) participants per site per month. Group intervention trials involve a delay in starting the intervention for some participants, until sufficient numbers are available to start a group. There was no evidence that the timing of consent, relative to randomisation, affected post-randomisation attrition which was a matter of concern for all trial teams. Group facilitator attrition was common in studies where facilitators were employed by the health system rather than the by the grant holder and led to the early closure of one trial; research sites responded by training ‘back-up’ and new facilitators. Trials specified that participants had to attend a median of 62.5% (range 16.7%–80%) of sessions, in order to receive a ‘therapeutic dose’; a median of 76.7% (range 42.9%–97.8%) received a therapeutic dose. Across the five trials, 75.3% of all sessions went ahead without the pre-specified ideal group size. A variety of methods were used to assess the fidelity of group interventions at a group and individual level across the five trials.

Conclusion

This is the first paper to provide an empirical basis for planning group intervention trials. Investigators should expect delays/difficulties in recruiting groups of the optimal size, plan for both facilitator and participant attrition, and consider how group attendance and group size affects treatment fidelity.

Trial registration

ISRCTN17993825 registered on 11/10/2016, ISRCTN28645428 registered on 11/04/2012, ISRCTN61215213 registered on 11/05/2011, ISRCTN67209155 registered on 22/03/2012, ISRCTN19447796 registered on 20/03/2014.

Recruitment of older adults to three preventative lifestyle improvement studies

BACKGROUND

Recruiting isolated older adults to clinical trials is complex, time-consuming and difficult. Previous studies have suggested querying existing databases to identify appropriate potential participants. We aim to compare recruitment techniques (general practitioner (GP) mail-outs, community engagement and clinician referrals) used in three randomised controlled trial (RCT) studies assessing the feasibility or effectiveness of two preventative interventions in isolated older adults (the Lifestyle Matters and Putting Life In Years interventions).

METHODS

During the three studies (the Lifestyle Matters feasibility study, the Lifestyle Matters RCT, the Putting Life In Years RCT) data were collected about how participants were recruited. The number of letters sent by GP surgeries for each study was recorded. In the Lifestyle Matters RCT, we qualitatively interviewed participants and intervention facilitators at 6 months post randomisation to seek their thoughts on the recruitment process.

RESULTS

Referrals were planned to be the main source of recruitment in the Lifestyle Matters feasibility study, but due to a lack of engagement from district nurses, community engagement was the main source of recruitment. District nurse referrals and community engagement were also utilised in the Lifestyle Matters and Putting Life In Years RCTs; both mechanisms yielded few participants. GP mail-outs were the main source of recruitment in both the RCTs, but of those contacted, recruiting yield was low (< 3%). Facilitators of the Lifestyle Matters intervention questioned whether the most appropriate individuals had been recruited. Participants recommended that direct contact with health professionals would be the most beneficial way to recruit.

CONCLUSIONS

Recruitment to the Lifestyle Matters RCT did not mirror recruitment to the feasibility study of the same intervention. Direct district nurse referrals were not effective at recruiting participants. The majority of participants were recruited via GP mail-outs, which may have led to isolated individuals not being recruited to the trials. Further research is required into alternative recruitment techniques, including respondent-driven sampling plus mechanisms which will promote health care professionals to recruit vulnerable populations to research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry, ID: ISRCTN28645428 (Putting Life In Years RCT). Registered on 11 April 2012; International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry, ID: ISRCTN67209155 (Lifestyle Matters RCT). Registered on 22 March 2012; ClinicalTrials.gov , ID: NCT03054311 (Lifestyle Matters feasibility study). Registered retrospectively on 19 January 2017.

Interventions targeting loneliness and social isolation among the older people: An update systematic review

This systematic review aims to summarize and update the current knowledge on the effectiveness of the existing interventions for alleviating loneliness and social isolation among older persons. A search of PubMed, ISI Web of science, SCOPUS, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases was performed. The terminology combined all possible alternatives of the following keywords: social isolation, loneliness, old people, intervention and effectiveness. Eligible studies were published between January 2011 and February 2016 in English or Italian language and regarded the implementation of loneliness/social isolation interventions among the older generations. Outcome measures in terms of the intervention effects needed to be reported. In total, 15 quantitative and five qualitative studies were ultimately included in this review. Eighteen interventions were reported across the quantitative studies. Six out of 11 group interventions (55%), one out of four mixed interventions (25%) and all three individual interventions reported at least one significant finding related to loneliness or social isolation. Our review suggested that new technologies and community engaged arts might be seen as a promising tool for tackling social isolation and loneliness among the older individuals. Future studies need to work on methodological quality and take into consideration the suggestions of the present literature in order to provide firm evidence.

Only available to a selected few? Is it feasible to rely on a volunteer workforce for complex intervention delivery?

This paper recounts the process of undertaking a randomised controlled trial which was designed to examine the effectiveness of an intervention for socially isolated older people aged 75 years and over. It describes the reasons for early cessation of the study and raises the implications of this outcome for policy, practice and research. The intervention under investigation was designed to alleviate loneliness and foster companionship. It involves participants being linked with a small group of others through a teleconferencing system with each group being facilitated by trained volunteers. There was a requirement to recruit and train a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 60 volunteers over 1 year to facilitate 20 friendship groups to meet the number of older people required to be recruited to the study. Problems with recruiting and retaining the volunteer workforce by the voluntary sector organisation, who were commissioned to do so, led to the study closing even though older people were recruited in sufficient numbers. The paper draws upon analysis of various data sources from the study to identify the potential reasons. The discussion raises considerations regarding the extent of infrastructure required to deliver community services to vulnerable user groups at scale, identifies some of the issues that need to be addressed if such volunteer-initiated services are to be successful and informs future research programmes in this area.

Social capital interventions targeting older people and their impact on health: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Observational studies show that social capital is a protective health factor. Therefore, we aim to assess the currently unclear health impact of social capital interventions targeting older adults.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review based on a logic model. Studies published between January 1980 and July 2015 were retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science. We included randomised controlled trials targeting participants over 60 years old and focused on social capital or its components (eg, social support and social participation). The comparison group should not promote social capital. We assessed risk of bias and impact on health outcomes and use of health-related resources applying a procedure from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) based on vote-counting and standardised decision rules. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (reference number CRD42014015362).

RESULTS

We examined 17 341 abstracts and included 73 papers reporting 36 trials. Trials were clinically and methodologically diverse and reported positive effects in different contexts, populations and interventions across multiple subjective and objective measures. According to sufficiently reported outcomes, social capital interventions showed mixed effects on quality of life, well-being and self-perceived health and were generally ineffective on loneliness, mood and mortality. Eight trials with high quality showed favourable impacts on overall, mental and physical health, mortality and use of health-related resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review highlights the lack of evidence and the diversity among trials, while supporting the potential of social capital interventions to reach comprehensive health effects in older adults.