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.

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.

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.

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.

The economic costs of loneliness: a review of cost-of-illness and economic evaluation studies.

PURPOSE: Loneliness and social isolation can occur at all stages of the life course and are recognized as a global health priority. The aim of this study was to review existing literature on the economic costs associated with loneliness and social isolation as well as evidence on the cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent or address loneliness and social isolation. METHODS: A bibliographic database search was undertaken in Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Embase, supplemented by a grey literature search and a reference list search. Papers were included that were published in English language in peer-reviewed literature in the past 10 years, reporting costs of loneliness and/or social isolation or economic evaluations of interventions whose primary purpose is to reduce loneliness and/or social isolation, including return on investment (ROI) or social return on investment (SROI) studies. RESULTS: In total, 12 papers were included in this review, consisting of four cost-of-illness studies, seven economic evaluations and five ROI or SROI studies. Most studies were conducted in the UK and focused on older adults. Due to the inconsistent use of the terms loneliness and social isolation, as well as their measurement, the true economic burden can only be estimated to a certain extent and the comparability across economic evaluations and ROI studies is limited. CONCLUSIONS: The paucity of evidence that is available primarily evaluating the economic costs of loneliness indicates that more research is needed to assess the economic burden and identify cost-effective interventions to prevent or address loneliness and social isolation.

Correction to: The economic costs of loneliness: a review of cost­of­illness and economic evaluation studies.

The article, "The economic costs of loneliness: a review of cost_of_illness and economic evaluation studies", written by Cathrine Mihalopoulos was originally published electronically on the publisher's internet portal (currently SpringerLink) on 22 May 2019 with open access.'

Why Social Relationships Are Important for Physical Health: A Systems Approach to Understanding and Modifying Risk and Protection.

Social relationships are adaptive and crucial for survival. This review presents existing evidence indicating that our social connections to others have powerful influences on health and longevity and that lacking social connection qualifies as a risk factor for premature mortality. A systems perspective is presented as a framework by which to move social connection into the realm of public health. Individuals, and health-relevant biological processes, exist within larger social contexts including the family, neighborhood and community, and society and culture. Applying the social ecological model, this review highlights the interrelationships of individuals within groups in terms of understanding both the causal mechanisms by which social connection influences physical health and the ways in which this influence can inform potential intervention strategies. A systems approach also helps identify gaps in our current understanding that may guide future research.

Acute Physiologic Stress and Subsequent Anxiety Among Family Members of ICU Patients.

OBJECTIVES: The ICU is a complex and stressful environment and is associated with significant psychologic morbidity for patients and their families. We sought to determine whether salivary cortisol, a physiologic measure of acute stress, was associated with subsequent psychologic distress among family members of ICU patients. DESIGN: This is a prospective, observational study of family members of adult ICU patients. SETTING: Adult medical and surgical ICU in a tertiary care center. SUBJECTS: Family members of ICU patients. INTERVENTIONS: Participants provided five salivary cortisol samples over 24 hours at the time of the patient ICU admission. The primary measure of cortisol was the area under the curve from ground; the secondary measure was the cortisol awakening response. Outcomes were obtained during a 3-month follow-up telephone call. The primary outcome was anxiety, measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety. Secondary outcomes included depression and posttraumatic stress disorder. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 100 participants, 92 completed follow-up. Twenty-nine participants (32%) reported symptoms of anxiety at 3 months, 15 participants (16%) reported depression symptoms, and 14 participants (15%) reported posttraumatic stress symptoms. In our primary analysis, cortisol level as measured by area under the curve from ground was not significantly associated with anxiety (odds ratio, 0.94; p = 0.70). In our secondary analysis, however, cortisol awakening response was significantly associated with anxiety (odds ratio, 1.08; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Roughly one third of family members experience anxiety after an ICU admission for their loved one, and many family members also experience depression and posttraumatic stress. Cortisol awakening response is associated with anxiety in family members of ICU patients 3 months following the ICU admission. Physiologic measurements of stress among ICU family members may help identify individuals at particular risk of adverse psychologic outcomes.

Does Improving Marital Quality Improve Sleep? Results From a Marital Therapy Trial.

For most adults, sleep is a dyadic behavior. Only recently have studies explored the dynamic association between sleep and relationship functioning among bed partners. The current study is the first to examine bidirectional associations between changes in insomnia and changes in marital quality over time, in the context of a marital therapy trial. Among husbands, improvements in marital satisfaction were associated with a 36% decreased risk of insomnia at follow-up. Regarding the reverse direction, counter-intuitively, wife baseline insomnia was associated with improvements in husbands' marital satisfaction, but only among the non-treatment-seeking comparison group. Results are discussed in terms of implications for sleep and marital therapy, and suggest that improving sleep may be an added benefit of improving the marital relationship.

The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to both exacerbate and ameliorate existing socioeconomic inequalities. In this article, we provide a state-of-the-art interdisciplinary overview of the potential impacts of generative AI on (mis)information and three information-intensive domains: work, education, and healthcare. Our goal is to highlight how generative AI could worsen existing inequalities while illuminating how AI may help mitigate pervasive social problems. In the information domain, generative AI can democratize content creation and access but may dramatically expand the production and proliferation of misinformation. In the workplace, it can boost productivity and create new jobs, but the benefits will likely be distributed unevenly. In education, it offers personalized learning, but may widen the digital divide. In healthcare, it might improve diagnostics and accessibility, but could deepen pre-existing inequalities. In each section, we cover a specific topic, evaluate existing research, identify critical gaps, and recommend research directions, including explicit trade-offs that complicate the derivation of a priori hypotheses. We conclude with a section highlighting the role of policymaking to maximize generative AI's potential to reduce inequalities while mitigating its harmful effects. We discuss strengths and weaknesses of existing policy frameworks in the European Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom, observing that each fails to fully confront the socioeconomic challenges we have identified. We propose several concrete policies that could promote shared prosperity through the advancement of generative AI. This article emphasizes the need for interdisciplinary collaborations to understand and address the complex challenges of generative AI.

Ethnic differences in relationship orientation, marital quality and ambulatory blood pressure.

Mexican Americans typically have better cardiovascular health than Caucasians, despite being relatively economically disadvantaged. Given research indicating the importance of relationship quality on one's health, our study examined whether certain relationship orientations (eg, communal or exchange) differed between Caucasians and Mexican Americans and if these orientations could help explain the Hispanic Paradox. We recruited 582 adults from a community being primarily Caucasian (40%) and foreign-born Mexican Americans (55%). Participants wore 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitors and completed self-report measures of relationship satisfaction and relationship orientation. Results indicated that Caucasians tended to have more of a communal relationship orientation compared to foreign-born Mexican Americans. Communal orientation was predictive of higher relationship satisfaction and while higher relationship satisfaction predicted lower systolic blood pressure when ethnicity was added into the model this relationship was eliminated and foreign-born Mexican Americans had higher ABP compared to Caucasians. Even though communal and exchange relationship orientation don't seem to give us any more information to unravel the Hispanic Paradox, there are important ethnic differences in how we engage in marriage relationships and future research will need to examine the health effects of these differences.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.