Advancing loneliness and social isolation as global health challenges: taking three priority actions

Loneliness and social isolation have been identified as critical global health issues in the aftermath of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis. While there is robust scientific evidence demonstrating the impact of loneliness and social isolation on health outcomes and mortality, there are fundamental issues to resolve so that health authorities, decision makers, and practitioners worldwide are informed and aligned with the latest evidence. Three priority actions are posited to achieve a wider and more substantial impact on loneliness and social isolation. They are 1) strengthening the evidence base; 2) adopting a whole-of-systems approach; 3) developing policy support for governments worldwide. These priority actions are essential to reduce the pervasive impact of loneliness and social isolation as social determinants of health

PROTOCOL: In‐person interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness: An evidence and gap map

Abstract This is the protocol for an evidence and gap map. The objectives are as follows: This EGM aims to map available evidence on the effects of in‐person interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness across all age groups in all settings

Psychology Meets Biology in COVID-19: What We Know and Why It Matters for Public Health

Psychosocial factors are related to immune, viral, and vaccination outcomes. Yet, this knowledge has been poorly represented in public health initiatives during the COVID-19 pandemic. This review provides an overview of biopsychosocial links relevant to COVID-19 outcomes by describing seminal evidence about these associations known prepandemic as well as contemporary research conducted during the pandemic. This focuses on the negative impact of the pandemic on psychosocial health and how this in turn has likely consequences for critically relevant viral and vaccination outcomes. We end by looking forward, highlighting the potential of psychosocial interventions that could be leveraged to support all people in navigating a postpandemic world and how a biopsychosocial approach to health could be incorporated into public health responses to future pandemics

In‐person interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness: An evidence and gap map

BackgroundSocial isolation and loneliness can occur in all age groups, and they are linked to increased mortality and poorer health outcomes. There is a growing body of research indicating inconsistent findings on the effectiveness of interventions aiming to alleviate social isolation and loneliness. Hence the need to facilitate the discoverability of research on these interventions.ObjectivesTo map available evidence on the effects of in-person interventions aimed at mitigating social isolation and/or loneliness across all age groups and settings.Search MethodsThe following databases were searched from inception up to 17 February 2022 with no language restrictions: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, EBM Reviews—Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, APA PsycInfo via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCO, EBSCO (all databases except CINAHL), Global Index Medicus, ProQuest (all databases), ProQuest ERIC, Web of Science, Korean Citation Index, Russian Science Citation Index, and SciELO Citation Index via Clarivate, and Elsevier Scopus.Selection CriteriaTitles, abstracts, and full texts of potentially eligible articles identified were screened independently by two reviewers for inclusion following the outlined eligibility criteria.Data Collection and AnalysisWe developed and pilot tested a data extraction code set in Eppi-Reviewer. Data was individually extracted and coded. We used the AMSTAR2 tool to assess the quality of reviews. However, the quality of the primary studies was not assessed.Main ResultsA total of 513 articles (421 primary studies and 92 systematic reviews) were included in this evidence and gap map which assessed the effectiveness of in-person interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness. Most (68%) of the reviews were classified as critically low quality, while less than 5% were classified as high or moderate quality. Most reviews looked at interpersonal delivery and community-based delivery interventions, especially interventions for changing cognition led by a health professional and group activities, respectively. Loneliness, wellbeing, and depression/anxiety were the most assessed outcomes. Most research was conducted in high-income countries, concentrated in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia, with none from low-income countries. Major gaps were identified in societal level and community-based delivery interventions that address policies and community structures, respectively. Less than 5% of included reviews assessed process indicators or implementation outcomes. Similar patterns of evidence and gaps were found in primary studies. All age groups were represented but more reviews and primary studies focused on older adults (≥60 years, 63%) compared to young people (≤24 years, 34%). Two thirds described how at-risk populations were identified and even fewer assessed differences in effect across equity factors for populations experiencing inequities

Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review

In a meta-analysis, Julianne Holt-Lunstad and colleagues find that individuals' social relationships have as much influence on mortality risk as other well-established risk factors for mortality, such as smoking

Social Connection: An under-appreciated determinant of heath

The importance of human connection and concerns over the effects of isolation rose to the level of a simultaneous public health crisis during the Covid-19 pandemic; however, much of the focus was on secondary effects on mental health and emotional well-being. There is now robust evidence from decades of interdisciplinary science documenting the protective effects of social connections on health and longevity, and evidence that lacking social connection qualifies as a risk factor for chronic disease and premature mortality. This talk will summarize this evidence, providing the scope of the health effects, potential mechanisms and risk factors, as well as potential solutions to reduce risk. Importantly, this evidence points to several implications for solutions across sectors focused on individuals, communities, and society

General Population: Underestimation of Social Factors for Health

Through an online survey, Haslam and colleagues (2018) showed that communities in the United States and Great Britain tended to underestimate the importance of social factors for health and longevity, compared to other more established behavioral health factors. This data was gathered before the outbreak of the global pandemic in early 2020. The proposed study would gather online survey data from English-speaking respondents (similar to those measured in Haslam’s 2018 survey) who have been subject to societal changes that the COVID-19 pandemic has brought (mandated shelter-in-place orders, quarantines and social distancing). My hypothesis is that respondents will show similar perceptions to Haslam’s study, underestimating the impact of social factors on health outcomes despite the increased focus on health and diminished ability to gather in-person, since the inception of the pandemic

Advancing social connection as a public health priority in the United States

A robust body of scientific evidence has indicated that being embedded in high-quality close relationships and feeling socially connected to the people in one's life is associated with decreased risk for all-cause mortality as well as a range of disease morbidities. Despite mounting evidence that the magnitude of these associations is comparable to that of many leading health determinants (that receive significant public health resources), government agencies, health care providers and associations, and public or private health care funders have been slow to recognize human social relationships as either a health determinant or health risk marker in a manner that is comparable to that of other public health priorities. This article evaluates current evidence (on social relationships and health) according to criteria commonly used in determining public health priorities. The article discusses challenges for reducing risk in this area and outlines an agenda for integrating social relationships into current public health priorities.This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]