COVID-19 experiences of social isolation and loneliness among older adults in Africa: a scoping review

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.

In general practice, qualitative research contributes as significantly as quantitative research, in particular regarding psycho-social aspects of patient-care, health services provision, policy setting, and health administrations. In contrast to quantitative research, qualitative research as a whole has been constantly critiqued, if not disparaged, by the lack of consensus for assessing its quality and robustness. This article illustrates with five published studies how qualitative research can impact and reshape the discipline of primary care, spiraling out from clinic-based health screening to community-based disease monitoring, evaluation of out-of-hours triage services to provincial psychiatric care pathways model and finally, national legislation of core measures for children's healthcare insurance. Fundamental concepts of validity, reliability, and generalizability as applicable to qualitative research are then addressed with an update on the current views and controversies.

Objectives To review the impact of social isolation during COVID-19 pandemic on mental and physical health of older people and the recommendations for patients, caregivers and health professionals. Design Narrative review. Setting Non-institutionalized community-living people. Participants 20.069 individuals from ten descriptive cross-sectional papers. Measurements Articles since 2019 to 2020 published on Pubmed, Scielo and Google Scholar databases with the following MeSh terms (‘COVID-19’, ‘coronavirus’, ‘aging’, ‘older people’, ‘elderly’, ‘social isolation’ and ‘quarantine’) in English, Spanish or Portuguese were included. The studies not including people over 60 were excluded. Guidelines, recommendations, and update documents from different international organizations related to mental and physical activity were also analysed. Results 41 documents have been included in this narrative review, involving a total of 20.069 individuals (58% women), from Asia, Europe and America. 31 articles included recommendations and 10 addressed the impact of social distancing on mental or physical health. The main outcomes reported were anxiety, depression, poor sleep quality and physical inactivity during the isolation period. Cognitive strategies and increasing physical activity levels using apps, online videos, telehealth, are the main international recommendations. Conclusion Mental and physical health in older people are negatively affected during the social distancing for COVID-19. Therefore, a multicomponent program with exercise and psychological strategies are highly recommended for this population during the confinement. Future investigations are necessary in this field.