Interprofessional Collaborations on Interventions for People With Loneliness: A Scoping Review.
Lok Ying Chu, Youjuan Zhang, Graeme Drummond Smith and 1 others
PMID 40395206WHAT IT FOUND
Team-based loneliness programmes used home visits, phone calls, digital groups and art sessions.
Several studies reported lower loneliness, but collaboration details were unclear and many were not controlled trials.
Key findings
01Eleven studies were included, mostly involving older adults in community settings.
02Some multicomponent interprofessional interventions reported lower loneliness, including a nurse-led home-visiting randomised trial, but a randomised interdisciplinary trial did not show a significant loneliness effect.
03The review found little detail about how disciplines collaborated, and collaboration labels were used inconsistently.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review included 11 studies, and many were uncontrolled pre-post studies, so it cannot show which intervention worked. A randomised interdisciplinary trial did not show a significant effect on loneliness. Collaboration terms were used inconsistently, and the review rarely described how disciplines worked together. Most participants were older adults in community settings in Western countries, with a young adult study only in Australia. Some studies reported perceptions of students or healthcare professionals rather than outcomes for patients. Quality appraisal was done, but studies were not excluded for quality problems.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that interprofessional collaboration is proven to reduce loneliness. This scoping review mapped heterogeneous studies, many were uncontrolled, and a randomised trial found no significant effect; it did not identify which discipline or component caused any change.