Noone Chris, McSharry Jenny, Smalle Mike, Burns Annette, Dwan Kerry, Devane Declan, Morrissey Eimear C
School of Psychology, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.
James Hardiman Library, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 May 21;5(5):CD013632. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013632.
The current COVID-19 pandemic has been identified as a possible trigger for increases in loneliness and social isolation among older people due to the restrictions on movement that many countries have put in place. Loneliness and social isolation are consistently identified as risk factors for poor mental and physical health in older people. Video calls may help older people stay connected during the current crisis by widening the participant's social circle or by increasing the frequency of contact with existing acquaintances.
The primary objective of this rapid review is to assess the effectiveness of video calls for reducing social isolation and loneliness in older adults. The review also sought to address the effectiveness of video calls on reducing symptoms of depression and improving quality of life.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL from 1 January 2004 to 7 April 2020. We also searched the references of relevant systematic reviews.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (including cluster designs) were eligible for inclusion. We excluded all other study designs. The samples in included studies needed to have a mean age of at least 65 years. We included studies that included participants whether or not they were experiencing symptoms of loneliness or social isolation at baseline. Any intervention in which a core component involved the use of the internet to facilitate video calls or video conferencing through computers, smartphones or tablets with the intention of reducing loneliness or social isolation, or both, in older adults was eligible for inclusion. We included studies in the review if they reported self-report measures of loneliness, social isolation, symptoms of depression or quality of life. Two review authors screened 25% of abstracts; a third review author resolved conflicts. A single review author screened the remaining abstracts. The second review author screened all excluded abstracts and we resolved conflicts by consensus or by involving a third review author. We followed the same process for full-text articles.
One review author extracted data, which another review author checked. The primary outcomes were loneliness and social isolation and the secondary outcomes were symptoms of depression and quality of life. One review author rated the certainty of evidence for the primary outcomes according to the GRADE approach and another review author checked the ratings. We conducted fixed-effect meta-analyses for the primary outcome, loneliness, and the secondary outcome, symptoms of depression.
We identified three cluster quasi-randomised trials, which together included 201 participants. The included studies compared video call interventions to usual care in nursing homes. None of these studies were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Each study measured loneliness using the UCLA Loneliness Scale. Total scores range from 20 (least lonely) to 80 (most lonely). The evidence was very uncertain and suggests that video calls may result in little to no difference in scores on the UCLA Loneliness Scale compared to usual care at three months (mean difference (MD) -0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.28 to 2.41; 3 studies; 201 participants), at six months (MD -0.34, 95% CI -3.41 to 2.72; 2 studies; 152 participants) and at 12 months (MD -2.40, 95% CI -7.20 to 2.40; 1 study; 90 participants). We downgraded the certainty of this evidence by three levels for study limitations, imprecision and indirectness. None of the included studies reported social isolation as an outcome. Each study measured symptoms of depression using the Geriatric Depression Scale. Total scores range from 0 (better) to 30 (worse). The evidence was very uncertain and suggests that video calls may result in little to no difference in scores on the Geriatric Depression Scale compared to usual care at three months' follow-up (MD 0.41, 95% CI -0.90 to 1.72; 3 studies; 201 participants) or six months' follow-up (MD -0.83, 95% CI -2.43 to 0.76; 2 studies, 152 participants). The evidence suggests that video calls may have a small effect on symptoms of depression at one-year follow-up, though this finding is imprecise (MD -2.04, 95% CI -3.98 to -0.10; 1 study; 90 participants). We downgraded the certainty of this evidence by three levels for study limitations, imprecision and indirectness. Only one study, with 62 participants, reported quality of life. The study measured quality of life using a Taiwanese adaptation of the Short-Form 36-question health survey (SF-36), which consists of eight subscales that measure different aspects of quality of life: physical function; physical role; emotional role; social function; pain: vitality; mental health; and physical health. Each subscale is scored from 0 (poor health) to 100 (good health). The evidence is very uncertain and suggests that there may be little to no difference between people allocated to usual care and those allocated to video calls in three-month scores in physical function (MD 2.88, 95% CI -5.01 to 10.77), physical role (MD -7.66, 95% CI -24.08 to 8.76), emotional role (MD -7.18, 95% CI -16.23 to 1.87), social function (MD 2.77, 95% CI -8.87 to 14.41), pain scores (MD -3.25, 95% CI -15.11 to 8.61), vitality scores (MD -3.60, 95% CI -9.01 to 1.81), mental health (MD 9.19, 95% CI 0.36 to 18.02) and physical health (MD 5.16, 95% CI -2.48 to 12.80). We downgraded the certainty of this evidence by three levels for study limitations, imprecision and indirectness.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on this review there is currently very uncertain evidence on the effectiveness of video call interventions to reduce loneliness in older adults. The review did not include any studies that reported evidence of the effectiveness of video call interventions to address social isolation in older adults. The evidence regarding the effectiveness of video calls for outcomes of symptoms of depression was very uncertain. Future research in this area needs to use more rigorous methods and more diverse and representative participants. Specifically, future studies should target older adults, who are demonstrably lonely or socially isolated, or both, across a range of settings to determine whether video call interventions are effective in a population in which these outcomes are in need of improvement.
当前的新冠疫情被认为可能是导致老年人孤独感和社交隔离增加的一个诱因,原因是许多国家实施了行动限制措施。孤独感和社交隔离一直被视为老年人身心健康不佳的风险因素。视频通话或许能通过扩大参与者的社交圈或增加与现有熟人的联系频率,帮助老年人在当前危机期间保持社交。
本快速综述的主要目的是评估视频通话在减少老年人社交隔离和孤独感方面的有效性。该综述还试图探讨视频通话在减轻抑郁症状和改善生活质量方面的有效性。
我们检索了2004年1月1日至2020年4月7日期间的Cochrane系统评价数据库(CENTRAL)、医学期刊数据库(MEDLINE)、心理学文摘数据库(PsycINFO)和护理学与健康领域数据库(CINAHL)。我们还检索了相关系统评价的参考文献。
随机对照试验(RCT)和半随机对照试验(包括整群设计)符合纳入标准。我们排除了所有其他研究设计。纳入研究中的样本平均年龄需至少为65岁。我们纳入了那些无论参与者在基线时是否有孤独或社交隔离症状的研究。任何核心组成部分涉及使用互联网通过电脑、智能手机或平板电脑来促进视频通话或视频会议,旨在减少老年人孤独感或社交隔离,或两者兼有的干预措施均符合纳入标准。如果研究报告了孤独感(寂寞感)、社交隔离、抑郁症状或生活质量的自我报告测量结果,我们就将其纳入本综述。两名综述作者筛选了25%的摘要;第三名综述作者解决分歧。一名综述作者筛选了其余的摘要。第二名综述作者筛选了所有被排除的摘要,我们通过协商一致或引入第三名综述作者来解决分歧。全文文章遵循相同的流程。
一名综述作者提取数据,另一名综述作者进行核对。主要结局是孤独感和社交隔离,次要结局是抑郁症状和生活质量。一名综述作者根据GRADE方法对主要结局的证据确定性进行评级,另一名综述作者检查评级。我们对主要结局孤独感和次要结局抑郁症状进行了固定效应荟萃分析。
我们确定了三项整群半随机对照试验,共纳入201名参与者。纳入的研究将视频通话干预措施与养老院的常规护理进行了比较。这些研究均未在新冠疫情期间进行。每项研究都使用加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校孤独量表(UCLA Loneliness Scale)来测量孤独感。总分范围从20分(最不孤独)到80分(最孤独)。证据非常不确定,表明与常规护理相比,视频通话在三个月时(平均差(MD)-0.44,95%置信区间(CI)-3.28至2.41;3项研究;201名参与者)、六个月时(MD -0.34,95% CI -3.41至2.72;2项研究;152名参与者)和十二个月时(MD -2.40,95% CI -7.20至2.40;1项研究;90名参与者),在UCLA孤独量表得分上可能几乎没有差异。由于研究局限性、不精确性和间接性,我们将该证据的确定性下调了三个等级。纳入的研究均未将社交隔离作为结局报告。每项研究都使用老年抑郁量表(Geriatric Depression Scale)来测量抑郁症状。总分范围从0分(较好)到30分(较差)。证据非常不确定,表明与常规护理相比,视频通话在三个月随访时(MD 0.41,95% CI -0.90至1.72;3项研究;201名参与者)或六个月随访时(MD -0.83,95% CI -2.43至0.76;2项研究,152名参与者),在老年抑郁量表得分上可能几乎没有差异。有证据表明,视频通话在一年随访时可能对抑郁症状有较小影响,不过这一发现并不精确(MD -2.04,95% CI -3.98至-0.10;1项研究;90名参与者)。由于研究局限性、不精确性和间接性,我们将该证据的确定性下调了三个等级。只有一项有62名参与者的研究报告了生活质量。该研究使用台湾版的36题简明健康调查问卷(SF-36)来测量生活质量,该问卷由八个分量表组成,用于测量生活质量的不同方面:身体功能;身体角色;情感角色;社会功能;疼痛;活力;心理健康;以及身体健康。每个分量表的评分从0分(健康状况差)到100分(健康状况好)。证据非常不确定,表明在身体功能(MD 2.88,95% CI -5.01至10.77)、身体角色(MD -7.66,95% CI -24.08至8.76)、情感角色(MD -7.18,95% CI -16.23至1.87)、社会功能(MD 2.77,95% CI -8.87至14.41)、疼痛评分(MD -3.25,95% CI -15.11至8.61)、活力评分(MD -3.60,95% CI -9.01至1.81)、心理健康(MD 9.19,95% CI 0.36至18.02)和身体健康(MD 5.16,95% CI -2.48至12.80)的三个月得分方面,分配到常规护理组的人和分配到视频通话组的人之间可能几乎没有差异。由于研究局限性、不精确性和间接性,我们将该证据的确定性下调了三个等级(证据确定性降低三级)。
基于本综述,目前关于视频通话干预措施减少老年人孤独感有效性的证据非常不确定。该综述未纳入任何报告视频通话干预措施解决老年人社交隔离有效性证据的研究。关于视频通话对抑郁症状结局有效性的证据非常不确定。该领域未来研究需要采用更严格的方法以及更多样化和更具代表性的参与者。具体而言,未来研究应针对在一系列环境中明显孤独或社交隔离,或两者兼有的老年人,以确定视频通话干预措施在这些结局需要改善的人群中是否有效。