10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Developing a New Conceptual Framework of Meaningful Interaction for Understanding Social Isolation and Loneliness

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      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

          Academic debate about social isolation and loneliness, and their adverse health and well-being implications, has resulted in many policy and programme interventions directed towards reducing both, especially among older people. However, definitions of the two concepts, their measurement, and the relationship between the two are not clearly articulated. This article redresses this and draws on theoretical constructs adapted from symbolic interactionism, together with the Good Relations Measurement Framework, developed for the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the UK, to challenge the way in which social isolation and loneliness are currently understood. It argues for a need to understand experiences of social relationships, particularly those which facilitate meaningful interaction, suggesting that opportunities and barriers to meaningful interaction are determined by wider societal issues. This is set out in a new conceptual framework which can be applied across the life course and facilitates a new discourse for understanding these challenging concepts.

          Related collections

          Most cited references98

          • 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: not found
            • Article: not found

            A Ladder Of Citizen Participation

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

              An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation and loneliness

              Social isolation and loneliness have been associated with ill health and are common in the developed world. A clear understanding of their implications for morbidity and mortality is needed to gauge the extent of the associated public health challenge and the potential benefit of intervention.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Social Policy and Society
                Social Policy and Society
                Cambridge University Press (CUP)
                1474-7464
                1475-3073
                April 2022
                November 24 2020
                April 2022
                : 21
                : 2
                : 172-193
                Article
                10.1017/S147474642000055X
                dfd5a36f-eddf-4d14-87fa-720b03cb818a
                © 2022

                https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article