3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Digital interventions for subjective and objective social isolation among individuals with mental health conditions: a scoping 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

          Social isolation encompasses subjective and objective concepts. Both are associated with negative health consequences and are more prevalent among people with mental health problems than among the general population. To alleviate social isolation, digital interventions have potential as accessible alternatives or adjuncts to face-to-face interventions. This scoping review aimed to describe the types of digital interventions evaluated for feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness in alleviating social isolation among individuals with mental health problems, and to present an overview of the quantitative evidence yielded to inform future intervention design.

          Methods

          We searched five electronic databases for quantitative and mixed methods studies published between January 2000 and July 2020. Studies were included if they evaluated digital interventions for individuals with mental health conditions, had subjective and/or objective social isolation as their primary outcome, or as one of their outcomes if no primary outcome was specified. Feasibility studies were included if feasibility outcomes were the primary outcomes and social isolation was among their secondary outcomes. A narrative synthesis was conducted to present our findings. The protocol was registered on Open Science Framework (doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/CNX8A).

          Results

          Thirty-two studies were included for our review: 16 feasibility studies, seven single-group studies and nine effectiveness trials. There was great variation in the interventions, study designs and sample populations. Interventions included web-based programmes, phone-based programmes, blended interventions, socially assistive robots and virtual reality interventions. Many were feasibility studies, or otherwise not fully powered to detect an effect if one were present, thus preventing clear conclusions about clinical effectiveness. Satisfactory feasibility outcomes indicated potential for future trials to assess these interventions.

          Conclusion

          Our scoping review identified a range of digital approaches utilized to alleviate social isolation among individuals with mental health disorders. Conclusions regarding clinical effectiveness cannot be reached due to variability of approaches and lack of large-scale randomized controlled trials. To make clear recommendations for digital social isolation interventions, future research needs to be based on rigorous methods and larger samples. Future studies should also focus on utilizing theory-driven approaches and improving existing approaches to advance the field.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12888-022-03889-0.

          Related collections

          Most cited references95

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

          Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Scoping studies: advancing the methodology

            Background Scoping studies are an increasingly popular approach to reviewing health research evidence. In 2005, Arksey and O'Malley published the first methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. While this framework provides an excellent foundation for scoping study methodology, further clarifying and enhancing this framework will help support the consistency with which authors undertake and report scoping studies and may encourage researchers and clinicians to engage in this process. Discussion We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework. Recommendations include: clarifying and linking the purpose and research question (stage one); balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process (stage two); using an iterative team approach to selecting studies (stage three) and extracting data (stage four); incorporating a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis, reporting results, and considering the implications of study findings to policy, practice, or research (stage five); and incorporating consultation with stakeholders as a required knowledge translation component of scoping study methodology (stage six). Lastly, we propose additional considerations for scoping study methodology in order to support the advancement, application and relevance of scoping studies in health research. Summary Specific recommendations to clarify and enhance this methodology are outlined for each stage of the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Continued debate and development about scoping study methodology will help to maximize the usefulness and rigor of scoping study findings within healthcare research and practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

              Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                g.toh.16@alumni.ucl.ac.uk
                s.johnson@ucl.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Psychiatry
                BMC Psychiatry
                BMC Psychiatry
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-244X
                12 May 2022
                12 May 2022
                2022
                : 22
                : 331
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.83440.3b, ISNI 0000000121901201, Division of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, , University College London, ; 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1W 7NF UK
                [2 ]GRID grid.4305.2, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7988, School of Informatics, , University of Edinburgh, ; Crichton St, Newington, Edinburgh, UK
                [3 ]GRID grid.439468.4, Camden and Islington National Health Service Foundation Trust, St Pancras Hospital, ; St Pancras Way, London, NW1 0PE UK
                Article
                3889
                10.1186/s12888-022-03889-0
                9098213
                35549899
                2113cac0-8fd3-43d1-a923-c6ef9a726563
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 18 August 2021
                : 24 March 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100014013, UK Research and Innovation;
                Award ID: ES/S004440/1
                Award ID: ES/S004440/1
                Award ID: ES/S004440/1
                Award ID: ES/S004440/1
                Award ID: ES/S004440/1
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                social isolation,loneliness,digital interventions,technology,mental health conditions

                Comments

                Comment on this article