Skip to main content
. 2022 Sep 8;19(18):11310. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191811310

Table 1.

Description of Included Reviews Addressing the Impact of CTs on Loneliness and Social Isolation Among Older Adults.

Ref. Authors Range of Publication Years of Primary Studies Number of Primary Studies Addressing CTs Total Sample of Primary Studies Addressing CTs AMSTAR 2 Quality Score of Review
[28] Baker et al. (2018) 2000–2016 1 36 N/A 4
[29] Brimelow and Wollin (2017) 1996–2013 4 233 4
[30] Casanova et al. (2021) 2002–2019 11 953 2
[31] Cattan et al. (2005) 1970–2002 7 745 3
[32] Chen et al. (2021) 2007–2018 52 5844 4
[33] Chen and Schulz (2016) 2002–2015 30 N/A 2
[34] Choi and Lee (2021) 2003–2019 21 1323 2 2
[35] Choi et al. (2012) 2001–2011 6 373 2
[36] Cohen-Mansfield and Perach (2015) 1996–2011 12 694 2
[37] Dickens et al. (2011) 1976–2009 6 767 2
[38] Franck et al. (2016) 2010–2011 1 36 2
[39] Gardiner et al. (2018) 2003–2016 9 N/A 4
[40] Gasteiger et al. (2021) 2003–2020 29 632 3
[41] Gorenko et al. (2021) 2007–2018 19 3 N/A 4
[42] Hagan et al. (2014) 2000–2012 6 439 4
[43] Heins et al. (2021) 2005–2020 36 N/A 1
[44] Ibarra et al. (2020) until 2020 1 25 N/A 4
[45] Ibrahim et al. (2021) 1978–2018 4 162 4
[46] Isabet et al. (2021) 2003–2018 24 377 4
[47] Khosravi and Ghapanchi (2016) 2002–2013 41 4 N/A 4
[48] Khosravi et al. (2016) 2002–2015 34 8895 4
[49] Li et al. (2018) 2009–2017 10 382 2
[50] Masi et al. (2011) 1982–2009 8 410 3
[51] Morris et al. (2014) 2000–2013 18 2343 2
[52] Noone et al. (2020) 2010–2020 3 201 1
[53] O’Rourke et al. (2018) 1984–2014 4 N/A 4
[54] Poscia et al. (2018) 2012–2015 4 319 2
[55] Shah et al. (2021) 2010–2019 6 646 1

Note. Abbreviations: (Ref.) number according to reference list, (CTs) communication technologies. 1 Years included in the search strategy. 2 Total sample of studies with quantitative and mixed methods design. No sample size information available for qualitative studies. 3 7 studies addressing loneliness and/or social isolation. 4 8 studies addressing social isolation. Overall quality score according to AMSTAR 2: (1) high, (2) moderate, (3) low, and (4) critically low. N/A = Data not available. N = 28 included research reviews.