You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 12, Issue 12
  • Barriers and facilitators of digital interventions use to reduce loneliness among older adults: a protocol for a qualitative systematic review

Article Text

Article menu
Nursing
Protocol
Barriers and facilitators of digital interventions use to reduce loneliness among older adults: a protocol for a qualitative systematic review
  1. Hongyu Zhang1,
  2. Maritta Välimäki1,2,
  3. Xiaoyang Li1,
  4. Jiahui Nan1,
  5. Shuang Wu1,
  6. Xianmei Zeng1,
  7. Yunzhu Duan1,
  8. Hui Feng1,3
  1. 1Xiangya School of Nursing, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
  2. 2Department of Nursing Science, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
  3. 3Xiangya-Oceanwide Health Management Research Institute, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
  1. Correspondence to Professor Hui Feng; feng.hui{at}csu.edu.cn

Abstract

Introduction Digital interventions are considered as a potential solution to loneliness in older adults. However, this type of intervention has had limited acceptance among older adults (aged ≥60 years). To ensure the use of digital interventions in older adults, possible barriers and facilitating factors should be better understood from the user’s perspective. We aim to systematically examine the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of digital interventions designed to reduce loneliness in older adults by identifying, evaluating and synthesising qualitative studies.

Methods and analysis A comprehensive search of qualitative studies for barriers and facilitators for use of digital interventions will be conducted in the following databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. Studies reported in English will be considered for this review. Grey literature will not be included. Two reviewers (HZ and XL) will independently screen the literatures, and any differences will be solved by turning to the third reviewer (JN). The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Qualitative Research Critical Appraisal Checklist will be used by two reviewers to independently assess the validity of the methods used. Relevant data about the populations, context, culture, geographical location, study methods and barriers and facilitators to the implementation of digital interventions will be extracted using the JBI standardised data extraction tool. JBI meta-aggregation methods will be implemented to synthesise the data, which will generate themes and categories based on the data. The final synthesis will establish confidence levels using the JBI ConQual approach.

Ethics and dissemination The protocol does not require ethical approval. The data are based on published scientific databases. The results will be disseminated through journal articles and scientific conference presentations (if feasible).

PROSPERO registration number CRD42022328609.

  • geriatric medicine
  • quality in health care
  • primary care
  • health informatics
  • telemedicine
  • information technology
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067858

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Strengths and limitations of this study

    • We designed the protocol based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines.

    • Two reviewers will conduct study identification and data extraction independently, in order to minimise selection and reviewer bias.

    • The inclusion of only English-language publications may lead to cultural and publication bias.

    • Meta-synthesis of qualitative studies does not analyse the primary data, the synthesis relies on a sample of data extracted by the study team.

    Introduction

    Loneliness among older adults is a growing global concern.1 It has been estimated that the global prevalence of loneliness among older adults ranges from 4.2% to 24.2%.2 Loneliness has likely increased during the COVID-19 pandemic as a result of lockdown and quarantine measures implemented.3 4 Loneliness is an involuntary, unpleasant subjective experience that occurs when the quantity and/or quality of a person’s actual social network falls short of their expectations or needs.5–7 Another similar term is social isolation, which is an objective state that develops as a result of a lack of social contact with relatives or non-relatives.8 9 However, not all people in social isolation feel lonely, some people with large social networks still feel lonely.10 11

    Loneliness has serious implications for physical health, mental health and well-being. Among older adults, loneliness has been linked with adverse physical conditions, such as cardiovascular disease and stroke,12 and mental health conditions including cognitive decline,13 dementia,14 depression,15 anxiety,16 suicidal ideation and suicides.17 Recent evidence indicates that loneliness significantly adds to the cost of quality of life and health services,17 with the impact of severe loneliness equating to at least £9537 per person per year (and possibly as much as £17 043).18 Therefore, addressing loneliness in older adults is imperative.

    The WHO has recommended digital interventions as a solution to loneliness in older adults.19 With the popularity of digital technology and the increasing use of digital devices by older adults,20 digital interventions not only serve as platforms to provide more social opportunities for older adults and facilitate communication and participation in social interaction.21 22 Moreover, the combination of digital technology and social interventions alleviates older adults’ loneliness by changing adverse physical conditions and submitting social skills.23–25 Compared with non-digital interventions, digital interventions show potential for helping older adults make social connections,26 especially those with limited mobility and those living alone or in rural areas.27 Recently, digital technologies have been well implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic and further recommended by Shah et al in addressing loneliness.28

    We systematically searched the PubMed database for current literatures without language or year restrictions, using the terms ‘loneliness’, ‘older adults’, ‘intervention’ and ‘systematic review’. We identified 28 reviews of digital interventions, including 10 scoping reviews,29–3811 systematic reviews (including 7 meta-reviews),22 30 39–47 2 narrative reviews,48 49 2 rapid reviews,50 51 1 umbrella review,52 1 mini-review53 and 1 systematic review of systematic reviews.54 The majority of the reviews aimed to explore the effectiveness of several or all of the digital interventions on reducing loneliness.31 35 36 39 40 45 47–49 52 53 The scoping reviews also focused on the classification and mechanisms of action of digital interventions.29–38 Although most reviews found the effectiveness of digital interventions, most digital intervention techniques are not tailored for older adults.40 55 56 The ‘heterogeneity’ of older adults, such as declining cognitive and sensory abilities, can make them face barriers that do not easily allow them to use digital technologies.57–59 In addition, high costs,58 60 privacy issues,58 61 internet connectivity and workflow are also factors that are barriers to the implementation of digital technologies in older adults.58 61–63 Currently, two scoping reviews have summarised the barriers and facilitators to the use of two robotic interventions in reducing loneliness in older adults, but there are a lack of summarised evidence of the reasons for the success and barriers of digital interventions aimed at reducing loneliness in older adults.37 52 64

    Quantitative studies about digital interventions can determine whether interventions are effective, whereas qualitative studies are better suited to identify perceptions, beliefs, barriers and facilitators about the digital interventions.65 66 However, qualitative studies are typically small in size and based on sample information for different purposes.67 Systematic reviews of qualitative studies can aggregate and analyse findings from different settings and provide valuable information for intervention development and implementation.68 69 Therefore, this review aims to explore the barriers and facilitators in the implementations of digital interventions to reduce loneliness in the elderly, through a qualitative systematic review.

    Objectives

    The purpose of this qualitative systematic review is to synthesise and critically assess the results of published qualitative studies on digital interventions to reduce loneliness among older adults. The following two research questions will be addressed:

    1. What are the facilitators in the implementation of digital interventions to reduce loneliness in older adults?

    2. What are the barriers in the implementation of digital interventions to reduce loneliness in older adults?

    Systematic review registration

    This protocol has been registered in the PROSPERO database (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/), which is International Prospective Registration of Systematic Reviews, on 16 August 2022, with the registration number, and it can be accessed online at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=328609.

    Method and analysis

    Design

    This study is scheduled to begin on 15 January 2023.70 We will use a qualitative systematic review approach to synthesise the evidence in this review. The qualitative systematic review is useful for our purposes because it is interpretative in broadening the understanding of a particular phenomenon.71 We will report results based on the Joanna Briggs Institute’s (JBI) meta-synthesis approach,72 where included studies are categorised based on similarity of significance.73 Our review focuses on summarising existing perspectives rather than validity, and the approach aims to generate a new, comprehensive and integrated interpretation of qualitative findings that is more substantive and meaningful than individual investigations.74

    To ensure transparency and completeness of reporting, this review is designed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P),75 which is given as online supplemental appendix 1, and the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research statement.76

    Inclusion and exclusion criteria

    Participants

    We will include studies involving male and female older adults ≥60 years old.77 78 If the study involves participants under and over 60 years of age, two requirements need to be met at the same time to be included: (1) The study includes more than 50% of participants aged 60 and over, (2) the study’s results are age related. Older adults with multimorbidity (eg, with diabetes, cancer, depression, cardiovascular disease, stroke, angina, physical injury) will be included as long as the study’s focus is loneliness. Studies reporting physical condition without a focus on loneliness will be excluded.

    Intervention

    In this review, digital interventions are defined as interventions that apply digital technologies, such as devices and applications, that process information in the form of digital codes (usually binary codes).79 We will include studies where different types of digital applications or web-based social networking tools have been used, such as social networking sites, video communication, online discussion groups and forums, telephone dating, messaging services, chatbots, artificial intelligent (AI), sensors, robots and Internet and computer-based training.17 54 80–83

    Phenomena of interest

    The phenomena of interest in this review will be the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of digital interventions dedicated to reducing loneliness in older people. A barrier is an obstacle to the implementation of an electronic intervention for loneliness among older adults; barriers may include factors, issues or themes in the design, personal, social, environmental or policy levels of the relevant electronic device.84 A facilitator is a mechanism of the design of the relevant electronic device, older adults, stakeholders, service providers or policymakers that contributes to the effectiveness of an electronic intervention for loneliness among older adults.85

    Context

    We will make no restrictions on the setting. We will include communities, nursing homes, convalescent centres and hospitals in different regions and countries.

    Types of studies

    Eligible studies will be reports of original research, peer-reviewed articles with a qualitative component pertaining to barriers and facilitators of digital interventions for loneliness among older adults, including, but not limited to, designs such as ethnography, action research, case studies, implementation studies, qualitative process evaluation and qualitative interviews with stakeholders.71 86

    Time frame

    The search will be limited to English-language peer-reviewed articles published as early as 1 January 2010 to 15 January 2023.70 As the field of digital health technology is rapidly moving forward, this review is intended to capture the most current information available. At the beginning of 2010, the development of disruptive technologies began to show a high rate of growth, and their integration in healthcare became increasingly rich.42 87

    Language

    This review will include articles published in English.

    Publication status

    Only peer-reviewed, published full-text articles will be included in this review. Grey literature such as conference papers, dissertations, books and book chapters, letters, editorials and research proposals will be excluded.

    Search strategy

    The search strategy was developed in collaboration with a medical librarian. A three-step search strategy will be used in this paper.73 First, we will develop initial keywords based on domain knowledge and perform an initial search of PubMed. A comprehensive search strategy will be constructed for each of the included databases based on the text words contained in the titles and abstracts of the papers searched as well as the index terms used for the bibliographic databases. The initial keywords we used included: 60 years*, older*, elder*, age*, senior*, ageing, aging, or other words describing people aged 60 years or more; digital intervention, technol*, sensor*, robot*, internet*, computer*, electronic*, or other words describing interventions that apply digital technologies; loneliness, alone*, singleness*, or other words describing a state of feeling sad or depressed due to lack of companionship or separation from others; “barriers”, and its synonyms (eg, impairment, obstacle, problem, limitation, challenge, impediment, and other similar terms); “facilitators”, and its synonyms will be used (motivator, support, enabler, advancement, and other similar terms). Second, specific searches will be performed for the seven databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. Third, the reference lists of all retrieved studies will be reviewed to search for any additional studies. An example of the complete search strategy for PubMed is detailed in online supplemental appendix 2.

    Study records

    We will use EndNote as our bibliographic software management platform. First, we will use EndNote to filter the titles and abstracts and remove duplicates. We will present flowcharts (figure 1) in the final publication, showing the results of each stage of the review and adhering to the PRISMA statement.88

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    PRISMA flow diagram. Source: Adapted from Page.88 PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis.

    Study selection

    Two authors (HZ and XL) will independently review the titles and abstracts retrieved through the search strategy to determine what should be included in the full-text review. If both authors consider an abstract or title relevant, it will be included in the full-text review. Two authors will independently review the eligibility of all articles selected for the full-text review to reach consensus on inclusion. Any discrepancies will be resolved through discussion with the third author (JN). Reasons for the ineligibility of any excluded articles will be recorded.75

    Assessment of methodological quality

    Two reviewers (HZ and XZ) will use the JBI Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument independently to critically assess the methodological quality of each included study.89 The checklist consists of 10 questions, including study methodology, data collection and analysis and outcome validity. All questions can be scored as ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘unclear’, and in some cases as ‘not applicable’.72 A cut-off point of six ‘yes’ answers out of 10 questions will be predetermined: studies with more than six ‘yes’ answers will be considered to be of high quality.73 Upon completion of the assessment, both parties will compare the results and identify the higher quality literature for inclusion. If the two reviewers disagree and agreement cannot be reached through discussion, a third reviewer’s (JN) opinion will be sought.

    Data extraction

    Two independent reviewers (HZ and XL) will extract qualitative data from the papers finalised for inclusion using JBI System for the Unified Management Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI’s) standardised data extraction tool, and a third reviewer (JN) will check the completeness and accuracy of the data extraction.72 Extracted data will include: (1) authors, study country and specific setting (ie, care facility or community, etc), year of publication and purpose of study; (2) sample size, sample characteristics, study methods and data collection and type of intervention, (3) study findings related to facilitators and barriers and study limitations. If data included in the study are unclear or missing, we will contact the primary study authors to obtain key information. Two reviewers (HZ and XL) will extract the study results and their descriptions into an MS Excel spreadsheet and assign a level of credibility.90

    Data synthesis

    The findings of all qualitative studies will be pooled using the JBI SUMARI with the meta-aggregation approach.72 The JBI SUMARI is a supplementary software developed by JBI Centre to conduct systematic reviews.91 Among the methods of qualitative synthesis, meta-aggregation is most consistent with accepted practices for conducting high-quality systematic reviews.92 We will read the findings repeatedly to understand, analyse and interpret their meaning in the context of understanding the philosophical ideas and methodologies of each qualitative study, grouping similar findings together to form new categories, and then grouping the categories into integration results to form new ideas or interpretations.72 The integration results will be interpreted using verbal text, graphics or tables to describe particular or potentially contradictory events or phenomena and to make recommendations about practice and research. If the literatures that meet the inclusion criteria provide enough information, we will compare and discuss the differences in barriers and facilitators between interventions based on different contexts, different types of interventions (eg, interventions for groups and interventions for individuals) or different terms (short-term adoption and long-term adoption).

    We will use the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to synthesise the data. CFIR is a ‘meta-theoretical framework’ in the field of implementation science that integrates 19 different implementation theories or models to enable a comprehensive investigation of the multilevel barriers and facilitators affecting implementation.93 CFIR contains 39 components in five main dimensions: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved and the process of implementation, which interacts to influence the implementation and effectiveness of the intervention programme.93 Furthermore, CFIR serves as an organisational framework that allows for the integration of factors that influence implementation in multiple settings.93 94

    Assessing the certainty of findings

    Two reviewers (HZ and XL) will independently assess the confidence in the findings of this review using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach.95 This will increase the confidence level of each key finding. Two reviewers will be blind to each other’s assessments; only after both reviewers have completed their initial assessment of an article, they will compare their assessments. If a consensus is lacking, a discussion will take place between the reviewers. If an agreement cannot be reached, the help of a third reviewer will be sought.96 Results will be presented in the GRADE-CERQual summary of the qualitative results table.97

    Patient and public involvement

    As with other published study protocols, there has been no patient or public participation in the protocol phase of our study.98 99

    Ethics and dissemination

    This review does not require ethical approval because it is a systematic review of previously published studies. The results of this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Cacioppo JT,
      2. Cacioppo S
      . The growing problem of loneliness. Lancet 2018;391:426.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30142-9pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29407030
      OpenUrlPubMed
    2. ↵
      1. Surkalim DL,
      2. Luo M,
      3. Eres R, et al
      . The prevalence of loneliness across 113 countries: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2022;376:e067068.doi:10.1136/bmj-2021-067068pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35140066
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    3. ↵
      1. Galea S,
      2. Merchant RM,
      3. Lurie N
      . The mental health consequences of COVID-19 and physical distancing: the need for prevention and early intervention. JAMA Intern Med 2020;180:817–8.doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.1562pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32275292
      OpenUrlPubMed
    4. ↵
      1. Holmes EA,
      2. O'Connor RC,
      3. Perry VH, et al
      . Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science. Lancet Psychiatry 2020;7:547–60.doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30168-1pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32304649
      OpenUrlPubMed
    5. ↵
      1. Cacioppo JT,
      2. Cacioppo S,
      3. Boomsma DI
      . Evolutionary mechanisms for loneliness. Cogn Emot 2014;28:3–21.doi:10.1080/02699931.2013.837379pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24067110
      OpenUrlPubMed
    6. ↵
      1. Prohaska T,
      2. Burholt V,
      3. Burns A, et al
      . Consensus statement: loneliness in older adults, the 21st century social determinant of health? BMJ Open 2020;10:e034967.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034967pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32788184
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    7. ↵
      1. de Jong-Gierveld J,
      2. Kamphuls F
      . The development of a rasch-type loneliness scale. Appl Psychol Meas 1985;9:289–99.doi:10.1177/014662168500900307
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    8. ↵
      1. Escalante E,
      2. Golden RL,
      3. Mason DJ
      . Social isolation and loneliness: imperatives for health care in a post-COVID world. JAMA 2021;325:520–1.doi:10.1001/jama.2021.0100pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33560310
      OpenUrlPubMed
    9. ↵
      1. Tanskanen J,
      2. Anttila T
      . A prospective study of social isolation, loneliness, and mortality in Finland. Am J Public Health 2016;106:2042–8.doi:10.2105/AJPH.2016.303431pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27631736
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      1. Steptoe A,
      2. Shankar A,
      3. Demakakos P, et al
      . Social isolation, loneliness, and all-cause mortality in older men and women. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013;110:5797–801.doi:10.1073/pnas.1219686110pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23530191
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    11. ↵
      1. Lennartsson C,
      2. Rehnberg J,
      3. Dahlberg L
      . The association between loneliness, social isolation and all-cause mortality in a nationally representative sample of older women and men. Aging Ment Health 2022;26:1821–8.doi:10.1080/13607863.2021.1976723pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34550832
      OpenUrlPubMed
    12. ↵
      1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
      . Social isolation and loneliness in older adults: opportunities for the health care system. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2020.
    13. ↵
      1. Evans IEM,
      2. Martyr A,
      3. Collins R, et al
      . Social isolation and cognitive function in later life: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Alzheimers Dis 2019;70:S119–44.doi:10.3233/JAD-180501pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30372678
      OpenUrlPubMed
    14. ↵
      1. Kuiper JS,
      2. Zuidersma M,
      3. Oude Voshaar RC, et al
      . Social relationships and risk of dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies. Ageing Res Rev 2015;22:39–57.doi:10.1016/j.arr.2015.04.006pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25956016
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    15. ↵
      1. Lara E,
      2. Martín-María N,
      3. De la Torre-Luque A, et al
      . Does loneliness contribute to mild cognitive impairment and dementia? A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Ageing Res Rev 2019;52:7-16.doi:10.1016/j.arr.2019.03.002pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30914351
      OpenUrlPubMed
    16. ↵
      1. Leigh-Hunt N,
      2. Bagguley D,
      3. Bash K, et al
      . An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation and loneliness. Public Health 2017;152:157–71.doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2017.07.035pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28915435
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    17. ↵
      1. Ong AD,
      2. Uchino BN,
      3. Wethington E
      . Loneliness and health in older adults: a mini-review and synthesis. Gerontology 2016;62:443–9.doi:10.1159/000441651pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26539997
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Peytrignet S G-BS,
      2. Keohane K
      . Loneliness monetisationreport: analysis for the department for digital, culture. Media & Sport 2020.
    19. ↵
      1. Organization WH
      . Social isolation and loneliness among older people: advocacy brief 2021.
    20. ↵
      1. Smith A
      . Older adults and technology use. Pew Research Center. Internet & American Life Project 2014.
    21. ↵
      1. Pearce AJ,
      2. Adair B,
      3. Miller K, et al
      . Robotics to enable older adults to remain living at home. J Aging Res 2012;2012:538169.doi:10.1155/2012/538169pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23304507
      OpenUrlPubMed
    22. ↵
      1. Pu L,
      2. Moyle W,
      3. Jones C, et al
      . The effectiveness of social robots for older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Gerontologist 2019;59:e37–51.doi:10.1093/geront/gny046pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29897445
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    23. ↵
      1. Winningham RG,
      2. Pike NL
      . A cognitive intervention to enhance institutionalized older adults' social support networks and decrease loneliness. Aging Ment Health 2007;11:716–21.doi:10.1080/13607860701366228pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18074259
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    24. ↵
      1. Slegers K,
      2. van Boxtel MPJ,
      3. Jolles J
      . Effects of computer training and Internet usage on the well-being and quality of life of older adults: a randomized, controlled study. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2008;63:P176–84.doi:10.1093/geronb/63.3.p176pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18559683
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      1. McCaig M,
      2. Waugh A,
      3. Duffy T, et al
      . The lived experience of older people using assistive technology. Working with Older People 2012;16:170–4.doi:10.1108/13663661211286693
      OpenUrl
    26. ↵
      1. Jarvis M-A,
      2. Padmanabhanunni A,
      3. Balakrishna Y, et al
      . The effectiveness of interventions addressing loneliness in older persons: an umbrella review. Int J Afr Nurs Sci 2020;12:100177.doi:10.1016/j.ijans.2019.100177
    27. ↵
      1. Morris ME,
      2. Adair B,
      3. Ozanne E, et al
      . Smart technologies to enhance social connectedness in older people who live at home. Australas J Ageing 2014;33:142–52.doi:10.1111/ajag.12154pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24730370
      OpenUrlPubMed
    28. ↵
      1. Shah SGS,
      2. Nogueras D,
      3. van Woerden HC, et al
      . The COVID-19 pandemic: a pandemic of Lockdown loneliness and the role of digital technology. J Med Internet Res 2020;22:e22287.doi:10.2196/22287pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33108313
      OpenUrlPubMed
    29. ↵
      1. Fakoya OA,
      2. McCorry NK,
      3. Donnelly M
      . Loneliness and social isolation interventions for older adults: a scoping review of reviews. BMC Public Health 2020;20:129.doi:10.1186/s12889-020-8251-6pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32054474
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    30. ↵
      1. Casanova G,
      2. Zaccaria D,
      3. Rolandi E, et al
      . The effect of information and communication technology and social networking site use on older people's well-being in relation to loneliness: review of experimental studies. J Med Internet Res 2021;23:e23588.doi:10.2196/23588pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33439127
      OpenUrlPubMed
    31. ↵
      1. Gasteiger N,
      2. Loveys K,
      3. Law M, et al
      . Friends from the future: a scoping review of research into robots and computer agents to combat loneliness in older people. Clin Interv Aging 2021;16:941–71.doi:10.2147/CIA.S282709pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34079242
      OpenUrlPubMed
    32. ↵
      1. Wister A,
      2. Fyffe I,
      3. O'Dea E
      . Technological interventions for loneliness and social isolation among older adults: a scoping review protocol. Syst Rev 2021;10:217.doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01775-6pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34362447
      OpenUrlPubMed
    33. ↵
      1. Smith C,
      2. Gregorio M,
      3. Hung L
      . Facilitators and barriers to using telepresence robots in aged care settings: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open 2021;11:e051769.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051769pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34535485
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    34. ↵
      1. Hung L,
      2. Wong J,
      3. Smith C, et al
      . Facilitators and barriers to using telepresence robots in aged care settings: a scoping review. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng 2022;9:20556683211072385.doi:10.1177/20556683211072385pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35083063
      OpenUrlPubMed
    35. ↵
      1. Thangavel G,
      2. Memedi M,
      3. Hedström K
      . Customized information and communication technology for reducing social isolation and loneliness among older adults: Scoping review. JMIR Ment Health 2022;9:e34221.doi:10.2196/34221pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35254273
      OpenUrlPubMed
    36. ↵
      1. Döring N,
      2. Conde M,
      3. Brandenburg K
      . Can communication technologies reduce loneliness and social isolation in older people? A scoping review of reviews. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19.
    37. ↵
      1. Hung L,
      2. Wong J,
      3. Smith C, et al
      . Facilitators and barriers to using telepresence robots in aged care settings: a scoping review. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng 2022;9:205566832110723.doi:10.1177/20556683211072385
    38. ↵
      1. Koh WQ,
      2. Felding SA,
      3. Budak KB, et al
      . Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of social robots for older adults and people with dementia: a scoping review. BMC Geriatr 2021;21.doi:10.1186/s12877-021-02277-9
    39. ↵
      1. Abbott R,
      2. Orr N,
      3. McGill P, et al
      . How do "robopets" impact the health and well-being of residents in care homes? A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Int J Older People Nurs 2019;14:e12239.doi:10.1111/opn.12239pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31070870
      OpenUrlPubMed
    40. ↵
      1. Ibarra F,
      2. Baez M,
      3. Cernuzzi L, et al
      . A systematic review on Technology-Supported interventions to improve old-age social wellbeing: loneliness, social isolation, and connectedness. J Healthc Eng 2020;2020:1–14.doi:10.1155/2020/2036842pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32765823
      OpenUrlPubMed
    41. ↵
      1. Heins P,
      2. Boots LMM,
      3. Koh WQ, et al
      . The effects of technological interventions on social participation of community-dwelling older adults with and without dementia: a systematic review. J Clin Med 2021;10:jcm10112308:2308.doi:10.3390/jcm10112308pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34070660
      OpenUrlPubMed
    42. ↵
      1. Shah SGS,
      2. Nogueras D,
      3. van Woerden HC, et al
      . Evaluation of the effectiveness of digital technology interventions to reduce loneliness in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res 2021;23:e24712.doi:10.2196/24712pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34085942
      OpenUrlPubMed
    43. ↵
      1. Wiwatkunupakarn N,
      2. Pateekhum C,
      3. Aramrat C, et al
      . Social networking site usage: a systematic review of its relationship with social isolation, loneliness, and depression among older adults. Aging Ment Health 2022;26:1318–26.doi:10.1080/13607863.2021.1966745pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34427132
      OpenUrlPubMed
    44. ↵
      1. Jin W,
      2. Liu Y,
      3. Yuan S, et al
      . The effectiveness of technology-based interventions for reducing loneliness in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front Psychol 2021;12:711030.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.711030pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34955948
      OpenUrlPubMed
    45. ↵
      1. Dworschak C,
      2. Heim E,
      3. Maercker A
      . Efficacy of internet-based interventions for common mental disorder symptoms and psychosocial problems in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Internet Interv 2022;27:100498.doi:10.1016/j.invent.2022.100498pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35141136
      OpenUrlPubMed
    46. ↵
      1. Todd E,
      2. Bidstrup B,
      3. Mutch A
      . Using information and communication technology learnings to alleviate social isolation for older people during periods of mandated isolation: a review. Australas J Ageing 2022;41:e227–39.doi:10.1111/ajag.13041pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35142013
      OpenUrlPubMed
    47. ↵
      1. Fu Z,
      2. Yan M,
      3. Meng C
      . The effectiveness of remote delivered intervention for loneliness reduction in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Psychol 2022;13:935544.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.935544pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35967719
      OpenUrlPubMed
    48. ↵
      1. Isabet B,
      2. Pino M,
      3. Lewis M, et al
      . Social telepresence robots: a narrative review of experiments involving older adults before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18:ijerph18073597.doi:10.3390/ijerph18073597pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33808457
      OpenUrlPubMed
    49. ↵
      1. Gorenko JA,
      2. Moran C,
      3. Flynn M, et al
      . Social isolation and psychological distress among older adults related to COVID-19: a narrative review of Remotely-Delivered interventions and recommendations. J Appl Gerontol 2021;40:3-13.doi:10.1177/0733464820958550pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32914668
      OpenUrlPubMed
    50. ↵
      1. Noone C,
      2. McSharry J,
      3. Smalle M, et al
      . Video calls for reducing social isolation and loneliness in older people: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;5:CD013632.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013632pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32441330
      OpenUrlPubMed
    51. ↵
      1. Zöllick JC,
      2. Rössle S,
      3. Kluy L, et al
      . [Potentials and challenges of social robots in relationships with older people: a rapid review of current debates]. Z Gerontol Geriatr 2022;55:298–304.doi:10.1007/s00391-021-01932-5pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34228186
      OpenUrlPubMed
    52. ↵
      1. Balki E,
      2. Hayes N,
      3. Holland C
      . Effectiveness of technology interventions in addressing social isolation, connectedness, and loneliness in older adults: systematic umbrella review. JMIR Aging 2022;5:e40125.doi:10.2196/40125pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36279155
      OpenUrlPubMed
    53. ↵
      1. Corbett CF,
      2. Wright PJ,
      3. Jones K, et al
      . Voice-activated virtual home assistant use and social isolation and loneliness among older adults: mini review. Front Public Health 2021;9:742012.doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.742012pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34708017
      OpenUrlPubMed
    54. ↵
      1. Chipps J,
      2. Jarvis MA,
      3. Ramlall S
      . The effectiveness of e-Interventions on reducing social isolation in older persons: a systematic review of systematic reviews. J Telemed Telecare 2017;23:817–27.doi:10.1177/1357633X17733773pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28958209
      OpenUrlPubMed
    55. ↵
      1. Mediating Asymmetries in Family Communication: Supporting the EInclusion of Older Adults
      . International Conference on universal access in Human-Computer interaction. Springer, 2015.
    56. ↵
      1. Easisocial: An Innovative Way of Increasing Adoption of Social Media in Older People
      . International Conference on smart homes and health telematics, 2014.
    57. ↵
      Please call me? Calling practices with telepresence robots for the elderly. Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction 2017.
    58. ↵
      1. Moyle W,
      2. Jones C,
      3. Cooke M, et al
      . Connecting the person with dementia and family: a feasibility study of a telepresence robot. BMC Geriatr 2014;14:1–11.doi:10.1186/1471-2318-14-7
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    59. ↵
      1. Korblet V
      . The acceptance of mobile telepresence robots by elderly people. University of Twente, 2019.
    60. ↵
      1. Vermeersch P,
      2. Sampsel DD,
      3. Kleman C
      . Acceptability and usability of a telepresence robot for geriatric primary care: a pilot. Geriatr Nurs 2015;36:234–8.doi:10.1016/j.gerinurse.2015.04.009pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25959035
      OpenUrlPubMed
    61. ↵
      A telepresence robot in residential care: family increasingly present, personnel worried about privacy. International Conference on social robotics; Springer 2017.
    62. ↵
      A roadmap to evaluate the usage of telepresence robots in elderly care centers. 2018 2nd International Conference on technology and innovation in sports, health and wellbeing (TISHW). IEEE 2018.
    63. ↵
      1. Robinson H,
      2. MacDonald BA,
      3. Kerse N, et al
      . Suitability of healthcare robots for a dementia unit and suggested improvements. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2013;14:34–40.doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2012.09.006pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23098418
      OpenUrlPubMed
    64. ↵
      1. Moyle W,
      2. Jones C,
      3. Cooke M, et al
      . Connecting the person with dementia and family: a feasibility study of a telepresence robot. BMC Geriatr 2014;14:7.doi:10.1186/1471-2318-14-7pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24456417
      OpenUrlPubMed
    65. ↵
      1. Ridder H-G
      . Book review: qualitative data analysis. A methods sourcebook. London, England: Sage publications Sage UK, 2014.
    66. ↵
      1. Beech N
      . Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Management Learning 2000;31:521.
    67. ↵
      1. Tong A,
      2. Flemming K,
      3. McInnes E, et al
      . Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012;12:1–8.doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-181
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    68. ↵
      1. Noyes J,
      2. Booth A,
      3. Moore G, et al
      . Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Glob Health 2019;4:e000893.doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000893pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30775016
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    69. ↵
      1. Thorne S,
      2. Jensen L,
      3. Kearney MH, et al
      . Qualitative metasynthesis: reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qual Health Res 2004;14:1342–65.doi:10.1177/1049732304269888pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15538004
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    70. ↵
      1. Hongyu Zhang MV,
      2. Li X,
      3. Nan J
      . Barriers and facilitators of digital intervention use to reduce loneliness among older adults: a protocol for a qualitative systematic review, 2022. Available: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=328609 [Accessed 11 Nov 2022].
    71. ↵
      1. Booth A
      . "Brimful of STARLITE": toward standards for reporting literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc 2006;94:e205:421–9.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17082834
      OpenUrlPubMed
    72. ↵
      1. Hannes K,
      2. Lockwood C
      . Pragmatism as the philosophical foundation for the Joanna Briggs meta-aggregative approach to qualitative evidence synthesis. J Adv Nurs 2011;67:1632–42.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05636.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21466579
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    73. ↵
      1. Jordan Z,
      2. Lockwood C,
      3. Munn Z, et al
      . Redeveloping the JBI model of evidence based healthcare. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2018;16:227–41.doi:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000139pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29664758
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    74. ↵
      1. Finfgeld DL
      . Metasynthesis: the state of the art-so far. Qual Health Res 2003;13:893–904.doi:10.1177/1049732303253462pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14502956
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    75. ↵
      1. Shamseer L,
      2. Moher D,
      3. Clarke M, et al
      . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;350:g7647.doi:10.1136/bmj.g7647pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25555855
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    76. ↵
      1. Tong A,
      2. Flemming K,
      3. McInnes E, et al
      . Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012;12:181.doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-181pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23185978
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    77. ↵
      1. Nations NYCU
      . World population ageing 2020 highlights: living arrangements of older persons, 2020.
    78. ↵
      1. World Health Organization
      . Ageing and health 2022, 2022. Available: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health [Accessed 11 Nov 2022].
    79. ↵
      1. World Health Organization
      . WHO guideline: recommendations on digital interventions for health system strengthening, 2019.
    80. ↵
      1. Boulton E,
      2. Kneale D,
      3. Stansfield C, et al
      . Rapid systematic review of systematic reviews: what befriending, social support and low intensity psychosocial interventions, delivered remotely, are effective in reducing social isolation and loneliness among older adults? How do they work? F1000Research 2020;9:1368.doi:10.12688/f1000research.27076.1
      OpenUrl
    81. ↵
      1. Chen Y-RR,
      2. Schulz PJ
      . The effect of information communication technology interventions on reducing social isolation in the elderly: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2016;18:e18.doi:10.2196/jmir.4596pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26822073
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    82. ↵
      1. Neil-Sztramko SE,
      2. Coletta G,
      3. Dobbins M, et al
      . Impact of the AGE-ON tablet training program on social isolation, loneliness, and attitudes toward technology in older adults: Single-group pre-post study. JMIR Aging 2020;3:e18398.doi:10.2196/18398pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32310146
      OpenUrlPubMed
    83. ↵
      1. Ibarra F,
      2. Baez M,
      3. Cernuzzi L, et al
      . A systematic review on technology-supported interventions to improve old-age social wellbeing: loneliness, social isolation, and connectedness. J Healthc Eng 2020;2020:2036842doi:10.1155/2020/2036842pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32765823
      OpenUrlPubMed
    84. ↵
      1. Papadopoulos I,
      2. Koulouglioti C,
      3. Lazzarino R, et al
      . Enablers and barriers to the implementation of socially assistive humanoid robots in health and social care: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2020;10:e033096.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033096pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31924639
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    85. ↵
      1. Passey ME,
      2. Longman JM,
      3. Robinson J, et al
      . Smoke-free homes: what are the barriers, motivators and enablers? A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis. BMJ Open 2016;6:e010260.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010260pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26988351
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    86. ↵
      1. Berardi C,
      2. Hinwood M,
      3. Smith A, et al
      . Barriers and facilitators to the integration of digital technologies in mental health systems: a protocol for a qualitative systematic review. PLoS One 2021;16:e0259995.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0259995pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34807937
      OpenUrlPubMed
    87. ↵
      1. Shah SGS,
      2. Nogueras D,
      3. van Woerden H, et al
      . Effectiveness of digital technology interventions to reduce loneliness in adults: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2019;9:e032455.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032455pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31562164
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    88. ↵
      1. Page MJ,
      2. McKenzie JE,
      3. Bossuyt PM, et al
      . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71.doi:10.1136/bmj.n71pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33782057
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    89. ↵
      1. Hannes K,
      2. Lockwood C,
      3. Pearson A
      . A comparative analysis of three online appraisal instruments' ability to assess validity in qualitative research. Qual Health Res 2010;20:1736–43.doi:10.1177/1049732310378656pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20671302
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    90. ↵
      1. Aromataris E,
      2. Stern C,
      3. Lockwood C, et al
      . JBI series paper 2: tailored evidence synthesis approaches are required to answer diverse questions: a pragmatic evidence synthesis toolkit from JBI. J Clin Epidemiol 2022:6.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.04.006pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35429608
    91. ↵
      1. Munn Z,
      2. Aromataris E,
      3. Tufanaru C
      . The development of software to support multiple systematic review types: the Joanna Briggs Institute system for the unified management, assessment and review of information (JBI SUMARI). JBI Evidence Implement 2019;17:36–43.
      OpenUrl
    92. ↵
      1. Lockwood C,
      2. Munn Z,
      3. Porritt K
      . Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2015;13:179–87.doi:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000062pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26262565
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    93. ↵
      1. Damschroder LJ,
      2. Aron DC,
      3. Keith RE, et al
      . Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009;4:1–15.doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    94. ↵
      1. Koh WQ,
      2. Felding SA,
      3. Budak KB, et al
      . Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of social robots for older adults and people with dementia: a scoping review. BMC Geriatr 2021;21:1–17.doi:10.1186/s12877-021-02277-9
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    95. ↵
      1. Lewin S,
      2. Booth A,
      3. Glenton C, et al
      . Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series. Implement Sci 2018;13:2.doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0688-3pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29384079
      OpenUrlPubMed
    96. ↵
      1. Greenhalgh T,
      2. Wherton J,
      3. Sugarhood P, et al
      . What matters to older people with assisted living needs? A phenomenological analysis of the use and non-use of telehealth and telecare. Soc Sci Med 2013;93:86–94.doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.05.036pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23906125
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    97. ↵
      1. Jennie Popay HR,
      2. Sowden A,
      3. Petticrew M, et al
      . Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: a product from the ESRC methods programme. Lancaster University, 2006.
    98. ↵
      1. Malcolm M,
      2. Frost H,
      3. Cowie J
      . Loneliness and social isolation causal association with health-related lifestyle risk in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. Syst Rev 2019;8:48.doi:10.1186/s13643-019-0968-xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30732659
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    99. ↵
      1. Meyer SR,
      2. Lasater ME,
      3. Garcia-Moreno C
      . Violence against older women: a protocol for a systematic review of qualitative literature. BMJ Open 2019;9:e028809.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028809pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31142538
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Contributors HZ and MV are joint first authors. HZ, MV and HF conceived and designed the study. HZ, MV and XL wrote the manuscript. HZ and XL collaborated in developing the search strategy. JN, XZ, SW, YD and HF contributed to commented on the manuscript. HZ and HF are the study guarantors. HF oversaw this project and received a research grant to pay for the publication of the open-access article.

    • Funding This study is granted by the National Key R＆D Program of China (Number 2020YFC2008500, 2020YFC2008503, 2020YFC2008602) and the Special Funding for the Construction of Innovative Provinces in Hunan (Grant number 2020SK2055).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.