University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2021 Feb 17;16(2):e0247139. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247139. eCollection 2021.
A significant proportion of the worldwide population is at risk of social isolation and loneliness as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to identify effective interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness that are compatible with COVID-19 shielding and social distancing measures.
In this rapid systematic review, we searched six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and SCOPUS) from inception to April 2020 for systematic reviews appraising interventions for loneliness and/or social isolation. Primary studies from those reviews were eligible if they included: 1) participants in a non-hospital setting; 2) interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness that would be feasible during COVID-19 shielding measures; 3) a relevant control group; and 4) quantitative measures of social isolation, social support or loneliness. At least two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Downs and Black checklist. Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42020178654. We identified 45 RCTs and 13 non-randomised controlled trials; none were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The nature, type, and potential effectiveness of interventions varied greatly. Effective interventions for loneliness include psychological therapies such as mindfulness, lessons on friendship, robotic pets, and social facilitation software. Few interventions improved social isolation. Overall, 37 of 58 studies were of "Fair" quality, as measured by the Downs & Black checklist. The main study limitations identified were the inclusion of studies of variable quality; the applicability of our findings to the entire population; and the current poor understanding of the types of loneliness and isolation experienced by different groups affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Many effective interventions involved cognitive or educational components, or facilitated communication between peers. These interventions may require minor modifications to align with COVID-19 shielding/social distancing measures. Future high-quality randomised controlled trials conducted under shielding/social distancing constraints are urgently needed.
由于 COVID-19 大流行,全球相当一部分人口面临社交孤立和孤独的风险。我们旨在确定有效的干预措施来减少社交孤立和孤独感,这些干预措施与 COVID-19 屏蔽和社交距离措施相兼容。
在这项快速系统评价中,我们从成立到 2020 年 4 月在六个电子数据库(Medline、Embase、Web of Science、PsycINFO、Cochrane 系统评价数据库和 Scopus)中搜索了评估孤独和/或社交孤立干预措施的系统评价。如果符合以下标准,来自这些综述的主要研究就符合条件:1)非医院环境中的参与者;2)旨在减少 COVID-19 屏蔽措施期间可行的社交孤立和/或孤独感的干预措施;3)有相关对照组;4)采用社交孤立、社会支持或孤独感的定量措施。至少有两名作者独立筛选研究、提取数据,并使用 Downs 和 Black 清单评估偏倚风险。研究注册:PROSPERO CRD42020178654。我们确定了 45 项 RCT 和 13 项非随机对照试验;没有一项是在 COVID-19 大流行期间进行的。干预措施的性质、类型和潜在有效性差异很大。孤独的有效干预措施包括正念疗法、友谊课程、机器宠物和社交促进软件等心理疗法。很少有干预措施能改善社交孤立。总的来说,根据 Downs 和 Black 清单,58 项研究中有 37 项的质量为“良好”。确定的主要研究局限性包括纳入的研究质量参差不齐;我们的研究结果对整个人群的适用性;以及目前对不同受 COVID-19 大流行影响人群所经历的孤独和隔离类型的了解不足。
许多有效的干预措施涉及认知或教育组成部分,或促进了同伴之间的交流。这些干预措施可能需要进行微小的修改,以适应 COVID-19 屏蔽/社交距离措施。迫切需要在屏蔽/社交距离限制下进行高质量的随机对照试验。