Author, year | N (n allocated to intervention, control) | Mean age (years) | Gender (% female) | Intervention effect on social isolation outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Single-group study(s) (n = 7) | ||||
Wang, 2016 [70•] | 146 (urban = 56, rural = 90) | Age range: 16–70 overall | 67.86% (urban), 82.22% (rural) | - At post-intervention, the use of the relaxation module was associated with negative change in social support (b = − 0.10, p = 0.04). Use of the triggers, self-talk, unhelpful coping and mastery tools modules were not associated with significant changes in social support - Total number of days using the program was positively correlated with social support scores (r = 0.22, p < 0.01) |
Loi, 2016 [74•] | 5 | 69.9 overall | 40% overall | - There were no significant differences before and after the intervention for social isolation (t = − 2.434, p = 0.072) |
Lee, 2018 [71•] | 35 | 48.1 overall | 14.3% overall | - Patients did not show significant improvements on FSSQ (t = 0.197, p = 0.84) at post-treatment |
Goodwin, 2018 [72•] | 34 | 32.53 overall | 79.41% overall | - No significant changes were found in loneliness (p = 0.51) or social support (p = 0.91) at post-treatment |
De Almeida, 2018 [73•] | 9 | 38.11 overall | 22% overall | - Statistically significant improvement at post-treatment was found in social support (p = 0.021). Improvements were also found in subscales (intimacy: p = 0.012; satisfaction with family: p = 0.026). |
Chen, 2020 [75•] | 20 | 81.1 overall | 65% overall | - Comparing T2 to T4, statistically significant decreases in loneliness scores were found over time (F(3, 57) = 61.7, p < 0.001). - There were significant differences in every time point comparison: T2 vs T3 t = 8.84, p < 0.001, d = 1.95; T2 vsT4 t = 8.47, p < 0.001, d = 2.50; T3 vs T4 t = 2.48, p = 0.023, d = 0.75. |
Aschbrenner, 2016 [76•] | 25 | 48.6 overall | 56% overall | - The global score for the assessing perceived social support from the group was high (M = 30.8 SD = 5.5). |