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

      Effects of Objective and Perceived Social Isolation on Cardiovascular and Brain Health: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

      research-article
      , MD, MPH, FAHA, , PhD, FAHA, , PhD, FAHA, , ScD, MS, FAHA, , EdD, MS, FAHA, , MD, , SM, ScD, FAHA, , PhD, , MD, PhD, the American Heart Association Social Determinants of Health Committee of the Council on Epidemiology and Prevention and Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research; Prevention Science Committee of the Council on Epidemiology and Prevention and Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology; and Stroke Council
      Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
      John Wiley and Sons Inc.
      AHA Scientific Statements, brain health, cardiovascular health, loneliness, social isolation, Statements and Guidelines

      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, the relative absence of or infrequency of contact with different types of social relationships, and loneliness (perceived isolation) are associated with adverse health outcomes.

          Objective

          To review observational and intervention research that examines the impact of social isolation and loneliness on cardiovascular and brain health and discuss proposed mechanisms for observed associations.

          Methods

          We conducted a systematic scoping review of available research. We searched 4 databases, PubMed, PsycInfo, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health, and Scopus.

          Findings

          Evidence is most consistent for a direct association between social isolation, loneliness, and coronary heart disease and stroke mortality. However, data on the association between social isolation and loneliness with heart failure, dementia, and cognitive impairment are sparse and less robust. Few studies have empirically tested mediating pathways between social isolation, loneliness, and cardiovascular and brain health outcomes using appropriate methods for explanatory analyses. Notably, the effect estimates are small, and there may be unmeasured confounders of the associations. Research in groups that may be at higher risk or more vulnerable to the effects of social isolation is limited. We did not find any intervention studies that sought to reduce the adverse impact of social isolation or loneliness on cardiovascular or brain health outcomes.

          Conclusions

          Social isolation and loneliness are common and appear to be independent risk factors for worse cardiovascular and brain health; however, consistency of the associations varies by outcome. There is a need to develop, implement, and test interventions to improve cardiovascular and brain health for individuals who are socially isolated or lonely.

          Related collections

          Most cited references104

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

          Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

          Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.

            The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains. Following scoping searches, an examination was made of the vocabulary associated with the literature of review and synthesis (literary warrant). A simple analytical framework -- Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) -- was used to examine the main review types. Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were analysed against the SALSA framework, illustrating the inputs and processes of each review type. A description of the key characteristics is given, together with perceived strengths and weaknesses. A limited number of review types are currently utilized within the health information domain. Few review types possess prescribed and explicit methodologies and many fall short of being mutually exclusive. Notwithstanding such limitations, this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health information and the wider health care domain.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): reliability, validity, and factor structure.

              D. Russell (1996)
              In this article I evaluated the psychometric properties of the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3). Using data from prior studies of college students, nurses, teachers, and the elderly, analyses of the reliability, validity, and factor structure of this new version of the UCLA Loneliness Scale were conducted. Results indicated that the measure was highly reliable, both in terms of internal consistency (coefficient alpha ranging from .89 to .94) and test-retest reliability over a 1-year period (r = .73). Convergent validity for the scale was indicated by significant correlations with other measures of loneliness. Construct validity was supported by significant relations with measures of the adequacy of the individual's interpersonal relationships, and by correlations between loneliness and measures of health and well-being. Confirmatory factor analyses indicated that a model incorporating a global bipolar loneliness factor along with two method factor reflecting direction of item wording provided a very good fit to the data across samples. Implications of these results for future measurement research on loneliness are discussed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Chair
                Role: Vice Chair
                Journal
                J Am Heart Assoc
                J Am Heart Assoc
                10.1002/(ISSN)2047-9980
                JAH3
                ahaoa
                Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2047-9980
                04 August 2022
                16 August 2022
                : 11
                : 16 ( doiID: 10.1002/jah3.v11.16 )
                : e026493
                Article
                JAH37465
                10.1161/JAHA.122.026493
                9496293
                35924775
                2c188bed-b84b-49fd-8ecc-8587c10c5c2c
                © 2022 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 3, Pages: 13, Words: 10115
                Categories
                AHA Scientific Statement
                Clinical Statements and Guidelines
                AHA Scientific Statement
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                16 August 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.1.7 mode:remove_FC converted:16.08.2022

                Cardiovascular Medicine
                aha scientific statements,brain health,cardiovascular health,loneliness,social isolation,statements and guidelines

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content149

                Cited by24

                Most referenced authors4,402