Gigi Toh1, Eiluned Pearce2, John Vines3, Sarah Ikhtabi2, Mary Birken2, Alexandra Pitman2,4, Sonia Johnson5,6. 1. Division of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1W 7NF, UK. g.toh.16@alumni.ucl.ac.uk. 2. Division of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1W 7NF, UK. 3. School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Crichton St, Newington, Edinburgh, UK. 4. Camden and Islington National Health Service Foundation Trust, St Pancras Hospital, St Pancras Way, London, NW1 0PE, UK. 5. Division of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1W 7NF, UK. s.johnson@ucl.ac.uk. 6. Camden and Islington National Health Service Foundation Trust, St Pancras Hospital, St Pancras Way, London, NW1 0PE, UK. s.johnson@ucl.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social isolation encompasses subjective and objective concepts. Both are associated with negative health consequences and are more prevalent among people with mental health problems than among the general population. To alleviate social isolation, digital interventions have potential as accessible alternatives or adjuncts to face-to-face interventions. This scoping review aimed to describe the types of digital interventions evaluated for feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness in alleviating social isolation among individuals with mental health problems, and to present an overview of the quantitative evidence yielded to inform future intervention design. METHODS: We searched five electronic databases for quantitative and mixed methods studies published between January 2000 and July 2020. Studies were included if they evaluated digital interventions for individuals with mental health conditions, had subjective and/or objective social isolation as their primary outcome, or as one of their outcomes if no primary outcome was specified. Feasibility studies were included if feasibility outcomes were the primary outcomes and social isolation was among their secondary outcomes. A narrative synthesis was conducted to present our findings. The protocol was registered on Open Science Framework (doi: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CNX8A ). RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were included for our review: 16 feasibility studies, seven single-group studies and nine effectiveness trials. There was great variation in the interventions, study designs and sample populations. Interventions included web-based programmes, phone-based programmes, blended interventions, socially assistive robots and virtual reality interventions. Many were feasibility studies, or otherwise not fully powered to detect an effect if one were present, thus preventing clear conclusions about clinical effectiveness. Satisfactory feasibility outcomes indicated potential for future trials to assess these interventions. CONCLUSION: Our scoping review identified a range of digital approaches utilized to alleviate social isolation among individuals with mental health disorders. Conclusions regarding clinical effectiveness cannot be reached due to variability of approaches and lack of large-scale randomized controlled trials. To make clear recommendations for digital social isolation interventions, future research needs to be based on rigorous methods and larger samples. Future studies should also focus on utilizing theory-driven approaches and improving existing approaches to advance the field.
BACKGROUND: Social isolation encompasses subjective and objective concepts. Both are associated with negative health consequences and are more prevalent among people with mental health problems than among the general population. To alleviate social isolation, digital interventions have potential as accessible alternatives or adjuncts to face-to-face interventions. This scoping review aimed to describe the types of digital interventions evaluated for feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness in alleviating social isolation among individuals with mental health problems, and to present an overview of the quantitative evidence yielded to inform future intervention design. METHODS: We searched five electronic databases for quantitative and mixed methods studies published between January 2000 and July 2020. Studies were included if they evaluated digital interventions for individuals with mental health conditions, had subjective and/or objective social isolation as their primary outcome, or as one of their outcomes if no primary outcome was specified. Feasibility studies were included if feasibility outcomes were the primary outcomes and social isolation was among their secondary outcomes. A narrative synthesis was conducted to present our findings. The protocol was registered on Open Science Framework (doi: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CNX8A ). RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were included for our review: 16 feasibility studies, seven single-group studies and nine effectiveness trials. There was great variation in the interventions, study designs and sample populations. Interventions included web-based programmes, phone-based programmes, blended interventions, socially assistive robots and virtual reality interventions. Many were feasibility studies, or otherwise not fully powered to detect an effect if one were present, thus preventing clear conclusions about clinical effectiveness. Satisfactory feasibility outcomes indicated potential for future trials to assess these interventions. CONCLUSION: Our scoping review identified a range of digital approaches utilized to alleviate social isolation among individuals with mental health disorders. Conclusions regarding clinical effectiveness cannot be reached due to variability of approaches and lack of large-scale randomized controlled trials. To make clear recommendations for digital social isolation interventions, future research needs to be based on rigorous methods and larger samples. Future studies should also focus on utilizing theory-driven approaches and improving existing approaches to advance the field.
Authors: Matthew Price; Kenneth J Ruggiero; Pamela L Ferguson; Sachin K Patel; Frank Treiber; Deborah Couillard; Samir M Fahkry Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: Roos M C A Pot-Kolder; Chris N W Geraets; Wim Veling; Marije van Beilen; Anton B P Staring; Harm J Gijsman; Philippe A E G Delespaul; Mark van der Gaag Journal: Lancet Psychiatry Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 27.083
Authors: Jonathan D Neufeld; Peter M Yellowlees; Donald M Hilty; Hattie Cobb; James A Bourgeois Journal: Psychosomatics Date: 2007 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.386
Authors: Lisa Liebke; Melanie Bungert; Janine Thome; Sophie Hauschild; Dorothee Maria Gescher; Christian Schmahl; Martin Bohus; Stefanie Lis Journal: Personal Disord Date: 2016-08-08
Authors: David Villarreal-Zegarra; Christoper A Alarcon-Ruiz; G J Melendez-Torres; Roberto Torres-Puente; Alba Navarro-Flores; Victoria Cavero; Juan Ambrosio-Melgarejo; Jefferson Rojas-Vargas; Guillermo Almeida; Leonardo Albitres-Flores; Alejandra B Romero-Cabrera; Jeff Huarcaya-Victoria Journal: JMIR Ment Health Date: 2022-03-29