19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references94

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

          David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

            Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science

              Summary The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a profound effect on all aspects of society, including mental health and physical health. We explore the psychological, social, and neuroscientific effects of COVID-19 and set out the immediate priorities and longer-term strategies for mental health science research. These priorities were informed by surveys of the public and an expert panel convened by the UK Academy of Medical Sciences and the mental health research charity, MQ: Transforming Mental Health, in the first weeks of the pandemic in the UK in March, 2020. We urge UK research funding agencies to work with researchers, people with lived experience, and others to establish a high level coordination group to ensure that these research priorities are addressed, and to allow new ones to be identified over time. The need to maintain high-quality research standards is imperative. International collaboration and a global perspective will be beneficial. An immediate priority is collecting high-quality data on the mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic across the whole population and vulnerable groups, and on brain function, cognition, and mental health of patients with COVID-19. There is an urgent need for research to address how mental health consequences for vulnerable groups can be mitigated under pandemic conditions, and on the impact of repeated media consumption and health messaging around COVID-19. Discovery, evaluation, and refinement of mechanistically driven interventions to address the psychological, social, and neuroscientific aspects of the pandemic are required. Rising to this challenge will require integration across disciplines and sectors, and should be done together with people with lived experience. New funding will be required to meet these priorities, and it can be efficiently leveraged by the UK's world-leading infrastructure. This Position Paper provides a strategy that may be both adapted for, and integrated with, research efforts in other countries.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                17 February 2021
                2021
                17 February 2021
                : 16
                : 2
                : e0247139
                Affiliations
                [1 ] University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, United Kingdom
                [2 ] Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
                [3 ] National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration East of England, England, United Kingdom
                [4 ] Medical Library, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
                [5 ] Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom
                [6 ] The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, United Kingdom
                University of Glasgow, UNITED KINGDOM
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8867-1623
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8800-7896
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1596-043X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8501-2531
                Article
                PONE-D-20-25726
                10.1371/journal.pone.0247139
                7888614
                33596273
                3fba0789-e231-4c50-b28d-3be31d832c25
                © 2021 Williams et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 18 August 2020
                : 2 February 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 4, Pages: 28
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272, National Institute for Health Research;
                Award ID: RNAG/564
                Award Recipient :
                The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. JG was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration East of England (grant RNAG/564) for time spent on this project. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Computer and Information Sciences
                Software Engineering
                Computer Software
                Engineering and Technology
                Software Engineering
                Computer Software
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Clinical Medicine
                Clinical Trials
                Randomized Controlled Trials
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmacology
                Drug Research and Development
                Clinical Trials
                Randomized Controlled Trials
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Clinical Trials
                Randomized Controlled Trials
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Viral Diseases
                Covid 19
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Systematic Reviews
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Physical Activity
                Physical Fitness
                Exercise
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Sports and Exercise Medicine
                Exercise
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Sports Science
                Sports and Exercise Medicine
                Exercise
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                Mental Health Therapies
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Animal Behavior
                Animal Sociality
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Animal Behavior
                Animal Sociality
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Zoology
                Animal Behavior
                Animal Sociality
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Complementary and Alternative Medicine
                Exercise Therapy
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
                COVID-19

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article