Search

BackgroundLoneliness is a serious public health issue, and its burden is increasing in many countries. Loneliness affects social, physical, and mental health, and it is associated with multimorbidity and premature mortality. In addition to social interventions, a range of digital technology interventions (DTIs) are being used to tackle loneliness. However, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of DTIs in reducing loneliness, especially in adults. The effectiveness of DTIs in reducing loneliness needs to be systematically assessed. ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of DTIs in reducing loneliness in older adults. MethodsWe conducted electronic searches in PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science for empirical studies published in English from January 1, 2010, to July 31, 2019. The study selection criteria included interventional studies that used any type of DTIs to reduce loneliness in adults (aged ≥18 years) with a minimum intervention duration of 3 months and follow-up measurements at least 3 months after the intervention. Two researchers independently screened articles and extracted data using the PICO (participant, intervention, comparator, and outcome) framework. The primary outcome measure was loneliness. Loneliness scores in both the intervention and control groups at baseline and at follow-up at 3, 4, 6, and 12 months after the intervention were extracted. Data were analyzed via narrative synthesis and meta-analysis using RevMan (The Cochrane Collaboration) software. ResultsA total of 6 studies were selected from 4939 screened articles. These studies included 1 before and after study and 5 clinical trials (4 randomized clinical trials and 1 quasi-experimental study). All of these studies enrolled a total of 646 participants (men: n=154, 23.8%; women: n=427, 66.1%; no gender information: n=65, 10.1%) with an average age of 73-78 years (SD 6-11). Five clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis, and by using the random effects model, standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated for each trial and pooled across studies at the 3-, 4-, and 6-month follow-ups. The overall effect estimates showed no statistically significant difference in the effectiveness of DTIs compared with that of usual care or non-DTIs at follow-up at 3 months (SMD 0.02; 95% CI −0.36 to 0.40; P=.92), 4 months (SMD −1.11; 95% CI −2.60 to 0.38; P=.14), and 6 months (SMD −0.11; 95% CI −0.54 to 0.32; P=.61). The quality of evidence was very low to moderate in these trials. ConclusionsOur meta-analysis shows no evidence supporting the effectiveness of DTIs in reducing loneliness in older adults. Future research may consider randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes and longer durations for both the interventions and follow-ups. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032455

The focus of this perspective is on lockdown loneliness, which we define as loneliness resulting from social disconnection as a result of enforced social distancing and lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also explore the role of digital technology in tackling lockdown loneliness amid the pandemic. In this regard, we highlight and discuss a number of the key relevant issues: a description of lockdown loneliness, the burden of lockdown loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic, characteristics of people who are more likely to be affected by lockdown loneliness, factors that could increase the risk of loneliness, lockdown loneliness as an important public health issue, tackling loneliness during the pandemic, digital technology tools for social connection and networking during the pandemic, assessment of digital technology tools from the end users’ perspectives, and access to and use of digital technology for tackling lockdown loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic. We suggest that the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people who are more prone to lockdown loneliness are provided with access to digital technology so that they can connect socially with their loved ones and others; this could reduce loneliness resulting from social distancing and lockdowns during the COVID-19 crisis. Nonetheless, some key issues such as access to and knowledge of digital technology tools must be considered. In addition, the involvement of all key stakeholders (family and friends, social care providers, and clinicians and health allied professionals) should be ensured.

Citizen science approaches are widely and successfully used in biological, environmental, and ecological sciences; however, they are rarely applied in other domains, such as translational health research, notably in the field of liver disease and metabolism. We have designed a study that aims to explore the application of the citizen science approach in a translational experimental medicine study on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and a 12-week lifestyle and weight loss program. In this methodological paper, we describe the process of involving citizen scientists in the study. We will recruit a convenience sample of 31 participants (with and without NAFLD) and a half-dozen citizen scientists (members of the public). Citizen scientists will work alongside clinical and non-clinical researchers in a translational experimental medicine study on NAFLD. Citizen scientists will be involved in the co-design and/or review of data collection tools (e.g., semi-structured open-ended questionnaire surveys and semi-structured wellbeing diaries completed by the participants), co-analysis of data on participants' experiences and motivations, co-drafts of research findings and papers, and suggestions for policy recommendations. Citizen scientists will be trained in the research tasks they will undertake, and will be either co-authors or their names will be mentioned in the acknowledgements in research paper(s) based on the level of research contributions. Lessons learned from implementing citizen science in this study will help to reveal the advantages, limitations, and implications of involving citizen scientists in the translational medicine research. Knowing citizen scientists' motivations, expectations, training needs, and overall experience of involvement in this study could provide insights, which could inform the planning and conduct of future translational research studies. Involving citizen scientists in translational medicine research is an important step in extending research opportunities for members of the public; however, there may be methodological challenges, which may be identified and resolved by more research studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs) are partnerships between healthcare organisations and universities in England. Their mission is to generate novel treatments, technologies, diagnostics and other interventions that increase the country's international competitiveness, to rapidly translate these innovations into benefits for patients, and to improve efficiency and reduce waste in healthcare. As NIHR Oxford BRC (Oxford BRC) enters its third 5-year funding period, we seek to (1) apply the evidence base on how best to support the various partnerships in this large, multi-stakeholder research system and (2) research how these partnerships play out in a new, ambitious programme of translational research.Methods: Organisational case study, informed by the principles of action research. A cross-cutting theme, 'Partnerships for Health, Wealth and Innovation' has been established with multiple sub-themes (drug development, device development, business support and commercialisation, research methodology and statistics, health economics, bioethics, patient and public involvement and engagement, knowledge translation, and education and training) to support individual BRC research themes and generate cross-theme learning. The 'Partnerships' theme will support the BRC's goals by facilitating six types of partnership (with patients and citizens, clinical services, industry, across the NIHR infrastructure, across academic disciplines, and with policymakers and payers) through a range of engagement platforms and activities. We will develop a longitudinal progress narrative centred around exemplar case studies, and apply theoretical models from innovation studies (Triple Helix), sociology of science (Mode 2 knowledge production) and business studies (Value Co-creation). Data sources will be the empirical research studies within individual BRC research themes (who will apply separately for NHS ethics approval), plus documentary analysis and interviews and ethnography with research stakeholders. This study has received ethics clearance through the University of Oxford Central University Research Ethics Committee.Discussion: We anticipate that this work will add significant value to Oxford BRC. We predict accelerated knowledge translation; closer alignment of the innovation process with patient priorities and the principles of responsible, ethical research; reduction in research waste; new knowledge about the governance and activities of multi-stakeholder research partnerships and the contexts in which they operate; and capacity-building that reflects the future needs of a rapidly-evolving health research system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]