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.

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.

Benchmarking Social Isolation, Loneliness, and Smoking: Challenges and Opportunities for Public Health.

Over the past decade, the health implications of social isolation and loneliness garnered global attention due in part to a widely cited meta-analysis that benchmarked associations between cigarette smoking and mortality with associations between several social-relationship measures and mortality. Leaders in health systems, research, government, and popular media have since claimed that the harms of social isolation and loneliness are comparable to that of cigarette smoking. Our commentary examines the basis of this comparison. We suggest that comparisons between social isolation, loneliness, and smoking have been helpful for raising awareness of robust evidence linking social relationships and health. However, the analogy often oversimplifies the evidence and may overemphasize treating social isolation or loneliness at the individual level without sufficient attention on population-level prevention. As communities, governments, and health and social sector practitioners navigate opportunities for change, we believe now is time to focus greater attention on the structures and environments that promote and constrain healthy relationships.

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.

Social relationship satisfaction and accumulation of chronic conditions and multimorbidity: a national cohort of Australian women.

Background: Social relationships are associated with mortality and chronic conditions. However, little is known about the effects of social relationship satisfaction on multiple chronic conditions (multimorbidity). Aims: To examine whether social relationship satisfaction is associated with the accumulation of multimorbidity. Methods: Data from 7 694 Australian women who were free from 11 chronic conditions at 45-50 years of age in 1996 were analysed. Five types of social relationship satisfaction (partner, family members, friends, work and social activities) were measured approximately every 3 years and scored from 0 (very dissatisfied) to 3 (very satisfied). Scores from each relationship type were summed to provide an overall satisfaction score (range: ≤5-15). The outcome of interest was the accumulation of multimorbidity in 11 chronic conditions. Results: Over a 20-year period, 4 484 (58.3%) women reported multimorbidities. Overall, the level of social relationship satisfaction had a dose-response relationship with the accumulation of multimorbidities. Compared with women reporting the highest satisfaction (score 15), women with the lowest satisfaction (score ≤5) had the highest odds of accumulating multimorbidity (odds ratio (OR)= 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.94 to 2.83) in the adjusted model. Similar results were observed for each social relationship type. Other risk factors, such as socioeconomic, behavioural and menopausal status, together explained 22.72% of the association. Conclusions: Social relationship satisfaction is associated with the accumulation of multimorbidity, and the relationship is only partly explained by socioeconomic, behavioural and reproductive factors. Social connections (eg, satisfaction with social relationships) should be considered a public health priority in chronic disease prevention and intervention.

NAMS 2021 Utian Translational Science SymposiumSeptember 2021, Washington, DCCharting the path to health in midlife and beyond: the biology and practice of wellness.

ABSTRACT: Charting the Path to Health in Midlife and Beyond: The Biology and Practice of Wellness was a Translational Science Symposium held on Tuesday, September 21, 2021. Foundational psychosocial and behavioral approaches to promote healthy aging and strategies to disseminate this information were discussed. The following synopsis documents the conversation, describes the state of the science, and outlines a path forward for clinical practice. Wellness, in its broadest sense, prioritizes an orientation toward health, and an embrace of behaviors that will promote it. It involves a journey to improve and maintain physical and mental health and overall well-being to fully engage and live one's best life. It is more about recognizing and optimizing what one can do than what one cannot do and emphasizes the individual's agency over changing what they are able to change. Wellness is therefore not a passive state but rather an active goal to be sought continually. When viewed in this fashion, wellness is accessible to all. The conference addressed multiple aspects of wellness and embraced this philosophy throughout.

A Global Longitudinal Study Examining Social Restrictions Severity on Loneliness, Social Anxiety, and Depression.

Purpose: Social restrictions and government-mandated lockdowns implemented worldwide to kerb the SARS-CoV-2 virus disrupted our social interactions, behaviours, and routines. While many studies have examined how the pandemic influenced loneliness and poor mental health, such as depression, almost none have focussed on social anxiety. Further, how the change in social restrictions affected change in mental-health and well-being has not yet been explored. Methods: This is a longitudinal cohort study in community dwellers who were surveyed across three timepoints in the first six months of the pandemic. We measured loneliness, social anxiety, depression, and social restrictions severity that were objectively coded in a sample from Australia, United States, and United Kingdom (n = 1562) at each time point. Longitudinal data were analysed using a multivariate latent growth curve model. Results: Loneliness reduced, depression marginally reduced, and social anxiety symptoms increased as social restrictions eased. Specific demographic factors (e.g., younger age, unemployment, lower wealth, and living alone) all influenced loneliness, depression, and social anxiety at baseline. No demographic factors influenced changes for loneliness; we found that those aged over 25 years reduced faster on depression, while those younger than 25 years and unemployed increased faster on social anxiety over time. Conclusion: We found evidence that easing social restrictions brought about additional burden to people who experienced higher social anxiety symptoms. As country-mandated lockdown and social restrictions eased, people are more likely report higher social anxiety as they readjust into their social environment. Mental health practitioners are likely to see higher levels of social anxiety in vulnerable communities even as social restrictions ease.

Social Connection as a Public Health Issue: The Evidence and a Systemic Framework for Prioritizing the "Social" in Social Determinants of Health.

There is growing interest in and renewed support for prioritizing social factors in public health both in the USA and globally. While there are multiple widely recognized social determinants of health, indicators of social connectedness (e.g., social capital, social support, social isolation, loneliness) are often noticeably absent from the discourse. This article provides an organizing framework for conceptualizing social connection and summarizes the cumulative evidence supporting its relevance for health, including epidemiological associations, pathways, and biological mechanisms. This evidence points to several implications for prioritizing social connection within solutions across sectors, where public health work, initiatives, and research play a key role in addressing gaps. Therefore, this review proposes a systemic framework for cross-sector action to identify missed opportunities and guide future investigation, intervention, practice, and policy on promoting social connection and health for all.

Social isolation: An underappreciated determinant of physical health.

While a sizable body of research demonstrates the associations between social connection and health, much of the recent focus in the broader public and to some extent among academics has been on loneliness, with more objective/structural aspects often assumed to be proxies for more influential relationship factors such as relationship functions and quality. However, evidence suggests the actual presence of others (proximity and regular contact) is essential, and many studies document these structural indicators have just as powerful and, in some cases, more potent effects on indicators of health and well-being. This paper summarizes the evidence on social isolation and health and provides a framework for why social isolation may be a powerful predictor of health and mortality.

Loneliness and Social Isolation as Risk Factors: The Power of Social Connection in Prevention.

Social isolation and loneliness were already pressing concerns prior to the pandemic, but recent trends suggest a potential broadening of this public health crisis. Social connections have potent influences on health and longevity, and lacking social connection qualifies as a risk factor for premature mortality. However, social factors are often overlooked in medical and healthcare practice. There is also evidence documenting effects on biomarkers and health-relevant behaviors, as well as more proximal means social connection influences physical health. A recent National Academy of Science consensus committee report provides recommendations for how this evidence can inform medical and healthcare. Clinicians play an important role in assessing, preventing, and mitigating the adverse effects of social isolation and loneliness.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Loneliness and Social Isolation: A Multi-Country Study.

The COVID-19 global pandemic and subsequent public health social measures have challenged our social and economic life, with increasing concerns around potentially rising levels of social isolation and loneliness. This paper is based on cross-sectional online survey data (available in 10 languages, from 2 June to 16 November 2020) with 20,398 respondents from 101 different countries. It aims to help increase our understanding of the global risk factors that are associated with social isolation and loneliness, irrespective of culture or country, to support evidence-based policy, services and public health interventions. We found the prevalence of severe loneliness was 21% during COVID-19 with 6% retrospectively reporting severe loneliness prior to the pandemic. A fifth were defined as isolated based on their usual connections, with 13% reporting a substantial increase in isolation during COVID-19. Personal finances and mental health were overarching and consistently cross-cutting predictors of loneliness and social isolation, both before and during the pandemic. With the likelihood of future waves of COVID-19 and related restrictions, it must be a public health priority to address the root causes of loneliness and social isolation and, in particular, address the needs of specific groups such as carers or those living alone.

A randomised controlled trial of the Nextdoor Kind Challenge: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Community interventions are often promoted as a way of reducing loneliness and social isolation in our neighbourhoods. However, those community interventions are rarely examined within rigorous study designs. One strategy that holds the potential to reduce loneliness and can promote health and wellbeing is doing acts of kindness. The current study involves evaluating the impact of kindness acts on loneliness in community-dwelling individuals using an online social networking platform. METHODS: This study is made up of three randomised controlled trials conducted in three countries. Each randomised controlled trial has two arms (intervention vs waitlist control) and is designed to compare the effectiveness of the KIND challenge, which involves doing at least one act of kindness per week within a four-week period. This study will recruit users of an online community, be randomised online, and will be conducted using online assessments. We will first explore the effects of the intervention on the primary outcome of loneliness, followed by secondary outcomes, social isolation, neighbour relationship quality and contact, mental health symptoms, stress, quality of life, and positive affect. Further, we will assess the feasibility, acceptability, and safety of the KIND Challenge. DISCUSSION: This study, designed to evaluate the impact of kindness on the community, will be the first large scale randomised control trial conducted across three countries, Australia, UK, and USA. It will examine the potential of community-led interventions to reduce loneliness, improve social isolation, and promote neighbourhood cohesion, health, and wellbeing, which is especially crucial during the COVID-19 public health crisis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Registry. NCT04398472 . Registered 21st May 2020.

Effects of psychosocial support interventions on survival in inpatient and outpatient healthcare settings: A meta-analysis of 106 randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals, clinics, and health organizations have provided psychosocial support interventions for medical patients to supplement curative care. Prior reviews of interventions augmenting psychosocial support in medical settings have reported mixed outcomes. This meta-analysis addresses the questions of how effective are psychosocial support interventions in improving patient survival and which potential moderating features are associated with greater effectiveness. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We evaluated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psychosocial support interventions in inpatient and outpatient healthcare settings reporting survival data, including studies reporting disease-related or all-cause mortality. Literature searches included studies reported January 1980 through October 2020 accessed from Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Alt HealthWatch, PsycINFO, Social Work Abstracts, and Google Scholar databases. At least 2 reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality, with at least 2 independent reviewers also extracting data and assessing study quality. Odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) data were analyzed separately using random effects weighted models. Of 42,054 studies searched, 106 RCTs including 40,280 patients met inclusion criteria. Patient average age was 57.2 years, with 52% females and 48% males; 42% had cardiovascular disease (CVD), 36% had cancer, and 22% had other conditions. Across 87 RCTs reporting data for discrete time periods, the average was OR = 1.20 (95% CI = 1.09 to 1.31, p < 0.001), indicating a 20% increased likelihood of survival among patients receiving psychosocial support compared to control groups receiving standard medical care. Among those studies, psychosocial interventions explicitly promoting health behaviors yielded improved likelihood of survival, whereas interventions without that primary focus did not. Across 22 RCTs reporting survival time, the average was HR = 1.29 (95% CI = 1.12 to 1.49, p < 0.001), indicating a 29% increased probability of survival over time among intervention recipients compared to controls. Among those studies, meta-regressions identified 3 moderating variables: control group type, patient disease severity, and risk of research bias. Studies in which control groups received health information/classes in addition to treatment as usual (TAU) averaged weaker effects than those in which control groups received only TAU. Studies with patients having relatively greater disease severity tended to yield smaller gains in survival time relative to control groups. In one of 3 analyses, studies with higher risk of research bias tended to report better outcomes. The main limitation of the data is that interventions very rarely blinded personnel and participants to study arm, such that expectations for improvement were not controlled. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, OR data indicated that psychosocial behavioral support interventions promoting patient motivation/coping to engage in health behaviors improved patient survival, but interventions focusing primarily on patients' social or emotional outcomes did not prolong life. HR data indicated that psychosocial interventions, predominantly focused on social or emotional outcomes, improved survival but yielded similar effects to health information/classes and were less effective among patients with apparently greater disease severity. Risk of research bias remains a plausible threat to data interpretation.

Social Isolation and Loneliness Among San Francisco Bay Area Older Adults During the COVID-19 Shelter-in-Place Orders.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Physical distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic may have unintended, detrimental effects on social isolation and loneliness among older adults. Our objectives were to investigate (1) experiences of social isolation and loneliness during shelter-in-place orders, and (2) unmet health needs related to changes in social interactions. DESIGN: Mixed-methods longitudinal phone-based survey administered every 2 weeks. SETTING: Two community sites and an academic geriatrics outpatient clinical practice. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 151 community-dwelling older adults. MEASUREMENTS: We measured social isolation using a six-item modified Duke Social Support Index, social interaction subscale, that included assessments of video-based and Internet-based socializing. Measures of loneliness included self-reported worsened loneliness due to the COVID-19 pandemic and loneliness severity based on the three-item University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Loneliness Scale. Participants were invited to share open-ended comments about their social experiences. RESULTS: Participants were on average aged 75 years (standard deviation = 10), 50% had hearing or vision impairment, 64% lived alone, and 26% had difficulty bathing. Participants reported social isolation in 40% of interviews, 76% reported minimal video-based socializing, and 42% minimal Internet-based socializing. Socially isolated participants reported difficulty finding help with functional needs including bathing (20% vs 55%; P = .04). More than half (54%) of the participants reported worsened loneliness due to COVID-19 that was associated with worsened depression (62% vs 9%; P < .001) and anxiety (57% vs 9%; P < .001). Rates of loneliness improved on average by time since shelter-in-place orders (4-6 weeks: 46% vs 13-15 weeks: 27%; P = .009), however, loneliness persisted or worsened for a subgroup of participants. Open-ended responses revealed challenges faced by the subgroup experiencing persistent loneliness including poor emotional coping and discomfort with new technologies. CONCLUSION: Many older adults are adjusting to COVID-19 restrictions since the start of shelter-in-place orders. Additional steps are critically needed to address the psychological suffering and unmet medical needs of those with persistent loneliness or barriers to technology-based social interaction.