What is the impact on health and wellbeing of interventions that foster respect and social inclusion in community-residing older adults? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies

S Ronzi, L Orton, D Pope, N K Valtorta, N G Bruce, S Ronzi, L Orton, D Pope, N K Valtorta, N G Bruce

Abstract

Background: Many interventions have been developed to promote respect and social inclusion among older people, but the evidence on their impacts on health has not been synthesised. This systematic review aims to appraise the state of the evidence across the quantitative and qualitative literature.

Methods: Eligible studies published between 1990 and 2015 were identified by scanning seven bibliographic databases using a pre-piloted strategy, searching grey literature and contacting experts. Studies were included if they assessed the impact (quantitatively) and/or perceived impact (qualitatively) of an intervention promoting respect and social inclusion on the physical or mental health of community-residing people aged 60 years and older. Titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility by one reviewer. A second reviewer independently screened a 10% random sample. Full texts were screened for eligibility by one reviewer, with verification by another reviewer. Risk of bias was assessed using standardised tools. Findings were summarised using narrative synthesis, harvest plots and logic models to depict the potential pathways to health outcomes.

Results: Of the 27,354 records retrieved, 40 studies (23 quantitative, 6 qualitative, 11 mixed methods) were included. All studies were conducted in high and upper middle-income countries. Interventions involved mentoring, intergenerational and multi-activity programmes, dancing, music and singing, art and culture and information-communication technology. Most studies (n = 24) were at high or moderate risk of bias. Music and singing, intergenerational interventions, art and culture and multi-activity interventions were associated with an overall positive impact on health outcomes. This included depression (n = 3), wellbeing (n = 3), subjective health (n = 2), quality of life (n = 2), perceived stress and mental health (n = 2) and physical health (n = 2). Qualitative studies offered explanations for mediating factors (e.g. improved self-esteem) that may lead to improved health outcomes and contributed to the assessment of causation.

Conclusions: Whilst this review suggests that some interventions may positively impact on the health outcomes of older people, and identified mediating factors to health outcomes, the evidence is based on studies with heterogeneous methodologies. Many of the interventions were delivered as projects to selected groups, raising important questions about the feasibility of wider implementation and the potential for population-wide benefits.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42014010107.

Keywords: Age-friendly environments; Ageing; Health impact; Older people; Social inclusion; Systematic review.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

N/A—No primary data collected

Consent for publication

N/A—No primary data collected

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram of the study selection process
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Quantitative and qualitative studies stratified by intervention category
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The logic model shows some possible outcomes and mediating factors based on scoping work. OP refers to older people; black dashed arrow represents a relationship/impact; ↓ decrease; ↑ increase; (?) symbol means neutral/do not know
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
In bold are the mediating factors and outcomes that have been studied by the quantitative and/or qualitative studies. In blue are the additional mediating factors and outcomes identified in this review. OP refers to older people; black dashed lines represent a relationship; ↓ decrease; ↑ increase; (?) symbol means neutral/do not know/evidence is inconsistent
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
This diagram shows an overview of the outcomes (depression, mental health, subjective health, physical health, quality of life and wellbeing) that have been studied by the qualitative and quantitative studies (including number of studies), the effect for quantitative studies and the possible mechanisms for these effects as suggested by the qualitative evidence. The dashed arrows that go from the mediating factors to the outcomes indicate solely that according to some participants’ narratives, these factors may contribute to an improvement in health outcomes. See Additional files 4 and 5 for a summary of the studies, and the harvest plot (Table 1), which graphically represents the overall summary of the quantity, direction and strength of the quantitative evidence for the various health outcomes
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
This diagram shows an overview of the outcomes (depression, mental health, subjective health, physical health, wellbeing, quality of life, falls and chronic pain) that have been studied by the qualitative and quantitative studies (including number of studies), the effect for quantitative studies and the possible mechanisms for these effects as suggested by the qualitative evidence. The dashed arrows that go from the mediating factors to the outcomes indicate solely that according to some participants’ narratives, these factors may contribute to an improvement in health outcomes. See Additional files 4 and 5 for a summary of the studies, and the harvest plot (Table 1), which graphically represents the overall summary of the quantity, direction and strength of the quantitative evidence for the various health outcomes
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
This diagram shows an overview of the outcomes (depression, subjective health, wellbeing, falls and physical health) that have been studied by the qualitative and quantitative studies (including number of studies), the effect for quantitative studies and the possible mechanisms for these effects as suggested by the qualitative evidence. The dashed arrows that go from the mediating factors to the outcomes indicate solely that according to some participants’ narratives, these factors may contribute to an improvement in health outcomes. See Additional files 4 and 5 for a summary of the studies, and the harvest plot (Table 1), which graphically represents the overall summary of the quantity, direction and strength of the quantitative evidence for the various health outcomes
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
This diagram shows an overview of the outcomes (depression, anxiety, perceived stress, mental health, physical health, wellbeing, quality of life and falls) that have been studied by the qualitative and quantitative studies (including number of studies), the effect for quantitative studies and the possible mechanisms for these effects as suggested by the qualitative evidence. The dashed arrows that go from the mediating factors to the outcomes indicate solely that according to some participants’ narratives, these factors may contribute to an improvement in health outcomes. See Additional files 4 and 5 for a summary of the studies, and the harvest plot (Table 1), which graphically represents the overall summary of the quantity, direction and strength of the quantitative evidence for the various health outcomes
Fig. 9
Fig. 9
This diagram shows an overview of the outcomes (depression, anxiety, mental health, quality of life and wellbeing) that have been studied by the qualitative and quantitative studies (including number of studies), the effect for quantitative studies and the possible mechanisms for these effects as suggested by the qualitative evidence. The dashed arrows that go from the mediating factors to the outcomes indicate solely that according to some participants’ narratives, these factors may contribute to an improvement in health outcomes. See Additional files 4 and 5 for a summary of the studies, and the harvest plot (Table 1), which graphically represents the overall summary of the quantity, direction and strength of the quantitative evidence for the various health outcomes
Fig. 10
Fig. 10
This diagram shows an overview of the outcomes (depression, anxiety, perceived stress, mental health, subjective health, physical health, wellbeing, quality of life, falls and chronic pain) that have been studied by the qualitative and quantitative studies (including number of studies), the effect for quantitative studies and the possible mechanisms for these effects as suggested by the qualitative evidence. The dashed arrows that go from the mediating factors to the outcomes indicate solely that according to some participants’ narratives, these factors may contribute to an improvement in health outcomes. See Additional files 4 and 5 for a summary of the studies, and the harvest plot (Table 1), which graphically represents the overall summary of the quantity, direction and strength of the quantitative evidence for the various health outcomes
Fig. 11
Fig. 11
This diagram shows an overview of the outcomes (depression, perceived stress, mental health, physical health, subjective health, wellbeing and quality of life) that have been studied by the qualitative and quantitative studies (including number of studies), the effect for quantitative studies and the possible mechanisms for these effects as suggested by the qualitative evidence. The dashed arrows that go from the mediating factors to the outcomes indicate solely that according to some participants’ narratives, these factors may contribute to an improvement in health outcomes. See Additional files 4 and 5 for a summary of the studies, and the harvest plot (Table 1), which graphically represents the overall summary of the quantity, direction and strength of the quantitative evidence for the various health outcomes

References

    1. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. World population, ageing. New York; 2015. doi:ST/ESA/SER.A/390
    1. World Health Organization. Measuring the age-friendliness of cities: A guide to using core indicators. Geneva; 2016. . Accessed 2 Oct 2017
    1. Rechel B, Grundy E, Robine J. Ageing in the European Union. Lancet. 2013;6736:1–11.
    1. World Health Organization. The world report on ageing and health. Luxembourg; 2015. 10.1093/geront/gnw037.
    1. Beard JR, Bloom DE. Towards a comprehensive public health response to population ageing. Lancet. 2015;385:658–661.
    1. Government Office for Science . Future of an ageing population. 2016.
    1. World Health Organization . Global strategy and action plan on ageing and health (2016-2020) 2017.
    1. Buffel T. Researchineg age-friendly communities researching age-friendly communities stories from older people as co-investigators. 1. Manchester: The University of Manchester Library; 2015.
    1. Mahmood A, Keating N. Towards inclusive built environments for older adults. In: Scharf T, Keating N, editors. From exclusion to Incl. old age: Policy; 2012.
    1. World Health Organization. Global age-friendly cities: a guide. Geneva; 2007. . Accessed 2 Oct 2017
    1. Buffel T, Phillipson C, Scharf T. Experiences of neighbourhood exclusion and inclusion among older people living in deprived inner-city areas in Belgium and England. Ageing Soc. 2012;33:89–109.
    1. Ronzi S, Pope D, Orton L, Bruce N. Using photovoice methods to explore older people’s perceptions of respect and social inclusion in cities: opportunities, challenges and solutions. SSM - Popul Heal. 2016;2:732–744.
    1. Doran P, Buffel T. Translating research into action. Manchester; 2017.
    1. Scharlach AE, Lehning AJ. Ageing-friendly communities and social inclusion in the United States of America. Ageing Soc. 2013;33:110–136.
    1. Scharlach AE. Age-friendly cities: for whom? By whom? For what purpose? In: Moulaert T, Garon S, editors. Age-friendly cities communities int. comp.: Springer; 2016. p. 305–29.
    1. Ogg J, Renaut S. Social inclusion of elders in familiese. In: Scharf T, Keating NC, editors. From exclusion to Incl. old age. In: Policy; 2012.
    1. Officer A, Schneiders L, Wu D, Nash P, Thiyagarajan A. Valuing older people: time for a global campaign to combat ageism. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94:710–710A.
    1. Nelson TD. Ageism: prejudice against our feared future self. J Soc Issues. 2005;61:207–221.
    1. Angus J, Reeve P. Ageism: a threat to “aging well” in the 21st century. J Appl Gerontol. 2006;25:137–152.
    1. Levy BR. Mind matters: cognitive and physical effects of aging self-stereotypes. Journals Gerontol Ser B. 2003;58:P203–P211.
    1. Levy BR, Slade MD, Murphy TE, Gill TM. Association between positive age stereotypes and recovery from disability in older persons. JAMA. 2012;308:1972–1973.
    1. Levy BR, Zonderman AB, Slade MD, Ferrucci L. Age stereotypes held earlier in life predict cardiovascular events in later life. Psychol Sci. 2009;20:296–298.
    1. Cass N, Shove E, Urry J. Social exclusion, mobility and access. Sociol Rev. 2005;53:539–555.
    1. Eriksson M, Bauer GF, Pelikan JM. The handbook of salutogenesis: Springer International; 2016.
    1. Warburton J, Ng SH, Shardlow SM. Social inclusion in an ageing world: introduction to the special issue. Ageing Soc. 2012;33:1–15.
    1. Scharlach AE, Lehning AJ. Ageing-friendly communities and social inclusion in the United States of America. Ageing Soc. 2012;33:110–136.
    1. Daly M, Silver H. Social exclusion and social capital: a comparison and critique. Theory Soc. 2008;37:537–566.
    1. WHO . Why should cities become more age-friendly? 2015.
    1. Petticrew M, Anderson L, Elder R, Grimshaw J, Hopkins D, Hahn R, et al. Complex interventions and their implications for systematic reviews: a pragmatic approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1209–1214.
    1. Australian Public Service. Tackling wicked problems—a public policy perspective. Camberra; 2007.
    1. Ogilvie D, Cummins S, Petticrew M. Assessing the evaluability of complex public health interventions: five questions for researchers, funders, and policymakers. The Milbank Quartelry. 2011;89:206–225.
    1. Pawson R, Walshe K, Greenhalgh T. Realist synthesis: an introduction 2004. (ESRC Research Methods Programme RMP Me). London: ESRC Working Paper Series.
    1. Koelen MA. Health promotion research: dilemmas and challenges. J Epidemiol Community Heal. 2001;55:257–262.
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655–5. 10.1136/bmj.a1655.
    1. Lorenc T, Felix L, Petticrew M, Melendez-Torres GJ, Thomas J, Thomas S, et al. Meta-analysis, complexity, and heterogeneity: a qualitative interview study of researchers’ methodological values and practices. Syst Rev. 2016;5:192.
    1. Wong G. Is complexity just too complex? J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1199–1201.
    1. Menec VH, Novek S, Veselyuk D, McArthur L. Learned from a Canadian province-wide, age-friendly initiative: the age-friendly Manitoba initiative. J Aging Soc Policy. 2013:37–41. 10.1080/08959420.2014.854606.
    1. Buckner S, Pope D, Mattocks C, Lafortune L, Dherani M, Bruce N. Developing age-friendly cities: an evidence-based evaluation tool. J Popul Ageing. 2017; 10.1007/s12062-017-9206-2.
    1. Orton L, Halliday E, Collins M, Egan M, Lewis S, Ponsford R, et al. Putting context centre stage: evidence from a systems evaluation of an area based empowerment initiative in England. Crit Public Health. 2016:1–13. 10.1080/09581596.2016.1250868.
    1. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination . Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. vol. 10. York: University of York; 2009.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;339:332–336.
    1. Ronzi S, Pope D, Orton L, Valtorta N, Bruce N. Clarifying the relationship between respect, social inclusion and health in older people: a systematic review of associations and intervention impacts. 2014.
    1. Anderson LM, Petticrew M, Rehfuess E, Armstrong R, Ueffing E, Baker P, et al. Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2011;2:33–42.
    1. Anderson LM, Petticrew M, Chandler J, Grimshaw J, Tugwell P, O’Neill J, et al. Introducing a series of methodological articles on considering complexity in systematic reviews of interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1205–1208.
    1. Squires JE, Valentine JC, Grimshaw JM. Systematic reviews of complex interventions: framing the review question. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1215–1222.
    1. Petticrew M, Chalabi Z, Jones D. To RCT or not to RCT: deciding when “more evidence is needed” for public health policy and practice. Epidemiol Community Heal. 2012:391–6. 10.1136/jech.2010.116483.
    1. Ogilvie D, Fayter D, Petticrew M, Sowden A, Thomas S, Whitehead M, et al. The harvest plot: a method for synthesising evidence about the differential effects of interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:8.
    1. Petticrew M. When are complex interventions “complex”? When are simple interventions “simple”? Eur J Pub Health. 2011;21:397–398.
    1. Datta J, Petticrew M. Challenges to evaluating complex interventions: a content analysis of published papers. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:568.
    1. Petticrew M, Rehfuess E, Noyes J, Higgins JPT, Mayhew A, Pantoja T, et al. Synthesizing evidence on complex interventions: how meta-analytical, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches can contribute. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1230–1243.
    1. Lui C-W, Everingham J-A, Warburton J, Cuthill M, Bartlett H. What makes a community age-friendly: a review of international literature. Australas J Ageing. 2009;28:116–121.
    1. Steels S. Key characteristics of age-friendly cities and communities: a review. Cities. 2015;47:45–52.
    1. Buffel T, McGarry P, Phillipson C, De Donder L, Dury S, De Witte N, et al. Developing age-friendly cities: case studies from Brussels and Manchester and implications for policy and practice. J Aging Soc Policy. 2013:37–41. 10.1080/08959420.2014.855043.
    1. Phillipson C, White S. Faheem Aftab. Old Moat: age-friendly neighbourhood report. Manchester; 2013.
    1. Phillipson C. Developing age-friendly cities: policy challenges & options. 2012.
    1. Cattan M, Kime N, Bagnall AM. The use of telephone befriending in low level support for socially isolated older people—an evaluation. Heal Soc Care Community. 2011;19:198–206.
    1. Eppi Centre . EPPI-Reviewer 4 software for research synthesis user manual. 2015. pp. 1–137.
    1. Katikireddi SV, Egan M, Petticrew M. How do systematic reviews incorporate risk of bias assessments into the synthesis of evidence? A methodological study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015;69:189–195.
    1. Atkins C, Sampson J. Critical appraisal guidelines for single case study research. Ecis. 2002:100–9.
    1. Pope D. Liverpool quality assessment tools 2014. Oral Communication.
    1. Rehfuess EA, Puzzolo E, Stanistreet D, Pope D, Bruce NG. Enablers and barriers to large-scale uptake of improved solid fuel stoves: a systematic review. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122:120–130.
    1. Harden A, Brunton G, Fletcher A, Oakley A. Teenage pregnancy and social disadvantage: systematic review integrating controlled trials and qualitative studies. BMJ. 2009;339:b4254.
    1. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000;320 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02151.x.
    1. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews—a product from the ESRC methods programme. 2006.
    1. Ellis SW. The Beth Johnson Foundation generations in action: final evaluation report (2004) 2004.
    1. Cohen G, Perlstein S. The impact of professionally conducted cultural programs on the physical health, mental health, and social functioning of older adults. Gerontologist. 2006;46:726–734.
    1. Slegers K, van Boxtel M, Jolles J. Effects of computer training and internet usage on the well-being and quality of life of older adults: a randomized, controlled study. 879 Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2008;63:176–184.
    1. Chung JCC. An intergenerational reminiscence programme for older adults with early dementia and youth volunteers: values and challenges. Scand J Caring Sci. 2009;23:259–264.
    1. Davidson JW, Fedele J. Investigating group singing activity with people with dementia and their caregivers: problems and positive prospects. Music Sci. 2011;15:402–422.
    1. Houston S, McGill A. English National Ballet Dance for Parkinson’s. 2015.
    1. Hackney ME, Kantorovich S, Earhart GM. A study on the effects of argentine tango as a form of partnered dance for those with Parkinson disease and the healthy elderly. Am J Danc Ther. 2007;29:109–127.
    1. Houston S, McGill A. English National Ballet Dance for Parkinson’s: An investigative study. 2011.
    1. Ruffing-Rahal MA. Evaluation of group health promotion with community-dwelling older women. Public Health Nurs. 1994;11:38–48.
    1. Vogelpoel N, Jarrold K. Social prescription and the role of participatory arts programmes for older people with sensory impairments. J Integr Care. 2014;22:39–50.
    1. Gaggioli A, Morganti L, Bonfiglio S, Scaratti C, Cipresso P, Serino S, et al. Intergenerational group reminiscence: a potentially effective intervention to enhance elderly psychosocial wellbeing and to improve children’s perception of aging. Educ Gerontol. 2014;40:486–498.
    1. Fried LP, Carlson MC, Freedman M, Frick KD, Glass TA, Hill J, et al. A social model for health promotion for an aging population: initial evidence on the Experience Corps model. J Urban Heal. 2004;81:64–78.
    1. Dickens AP, Richards SH, Hawton A, Taylor RS, Greaves CJ, Green C, et al. An evaluation of the effectiveness of a community mentoring service for socially isolated older people: a controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:218.
    1. Woodward AT, Freddolino PP, Wishart DJ, Bakk L, Kobayashi R, Tupper C, et al. Outcomes from a peer tutor model for teaching technology to older adults. Ageing Soc. 2012:1–24. 10.1017/S0144686X12000530.
    1. Kocken PL, Voorham a JJ. Effects of a peer-led senior health education program. Patient Educ Couns. 1998;34:15–23.
    1. Schlag PA. Older adults’ computer use: a case study of participants’ involvement with a SeniorNet program. Int J Disabil Hum Dev. 2011;10:139–144.
    1. De Souza EM, Grundy E. Intergenerational interaction, social capital and health: results from a randomised controlled trial in Brazil. Soc Sci Med. 2007;65:1397–1409.
    1. Hong SI, Morrow-Howell N. Health outcomes of Experience Corps®: a high-commitment volunteer program. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71:414–420.
    1. Fujiwara Y, Sakuma N, Ohba H, Nishi M, Lee S, Watanabe N, et al. REPRINTS: effects of an intergenerational health promotion program for older adults in Japan. J Intergener Relatsh. 2009;7:17–39.
    1. Murayama Y, Ohba H, Yasunaga M, Nonaka K, Takeuchi R, Nishi M, et al. The effect of intergenerational programs on the mental health of elderly adults. Aging Ment Health. 2014;19:306–314.
    1. Ellis SW. Changing the lives of children and older people: intergenerational mentoring in secondary schools. 2003. Beth Johnson Foundation and Manchester: Metropolitan University.
    1. De Souza EM. Intergenerational interaction in health promotion: a qualitative study in Brazil. Rev Saude Publica. 2003;37:463–469.
    1. Hernandez CR, Gonzalez MZ. Effects of intergenerational interaction on aging. Educ Gerontol. 2008;34:292–305.
    1. Gonyea JG, Burnes K. Aging well at home: evaluation of a neighborhood-based pilot project to “put connection back into community”. J Hous Elderly. 2013;27:333–347.
    1. Weintraub PC, Killian TS. Intergenerational programming: older persons’ perceptions of its impact. J Appl Gerontol. 2007;26:370–384.
    1. Buijs R, Ross-Kerr J, Cousins SO, Wilson D. Promoting participation: evaluation of a health promotion program for low income seniors. J Community Health Nurs. 2003;20:93–107.
    1. Coulton S, Clift S, Skingley A, Rodriguez J. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of community singing on mental health-related quality of life of older people: randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2015:250–5. 10.1192/bjp.bp.113.129908.
    1. Clift S, Morrison I. Group singing fosters mental health and wellbeing: findings from the East Kent “singing for health” network project. Ment Heal Soc Incl. 2011;15:88–97.
    1. Creech A, Hallam S, Varvarigou M, McQueen H, Gaunt H. Active music making: a route to enhanced subjective well-being among older people. Perspect Public Health. 2013;133:36–43.
    1. Davidson JW, McNamara B, Rosenwax L, Lange A, Jenkins S, Lewin G. Evaluating the potential of group singing to enhance the well-being of older people. Australas J Ageing. 2014;33:99–104.
    1. Woodward A, Freddolino P, Blaschke-Thompson C, Wishart D, Bakk L, Kobayashi R, et al. Technology and aging project: training outcomes and efficacy from a randomized field trial. Ageing Int. 2011;36:46–65.
    1. Phinney A, Moody EM, Small JA. The effect of a community-engaged arts program on older adults’ well-being. Can J Aging. 2014;33:336–345.
    1. Camic PM, Tischler V, Pearman CH. Viewing and making art together: a multi-session art-gallery-based intervention for people with dementia and their carers. Aging Ment Health. 2014;18:161–168.
    1. Yuen HK, Mueller K, Mayor E, Azuero A. Impact of participation in a theatre programme on quality of life among older adults with chronic conditions: a pilot study. Occup Ther Int. 2011;18:201–208.
    1. Saito T, Kai I, Takizawa A. Effects of a program to prevent social isolation on loneliness, depression, and subjective well-being of older adults: a randomized trial among older migrants in Japan. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2012;55:539–547.
    1. Greaves CJ. Effects of creative and social activity on the health and well-being of socially isolated older people: outcomes from a multi-method observational study. J R Soc Promot Heal. 2006;126:134–142.
    1. VarVarigou M, CreeCh A, HallaM S, CQueen H. Benefits experienced by older people in group music-making activities. J Appl Arts Heal. 2012; 10.1386/jaah.3.2.183.
    1. Skingley A, Bungay H. The Silver Song Club Project: singing to promote the health of older people. Br J Community Nurs. 2010;15:135–140.
    1. Mendis KP. The effects of participation in an intergenerational programme on the psychological wellbeing of the elderly: Fordham University; 1993. 10.16953/deusbed.74839.
    1. Newman S, Karip E, Faux RB. Everyday memory function of older adults: the impact of intergenerational school volunteer programs. J Educ Gerontol. 1995;21
    1. Varvarigou M, Creech A, Hallam S, McQueen H. Bringing different generations together in music-making: an intergenerational music project in East London. Int J Community Music. 2011;4:207–220.
    1. Gonyea JG, Burnes K. Aging well at home: evaluation of a neighborhood-based pilot project to “put connection back into community”. J Hous Elderly 2013;27:333–347 15p. doi:10.1080/02763893.2013.813425.
    1. Coulton S, Clift S, Skingley A, Rodriguez J. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of community singing on mental health-related quality of life of older people: randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2015; 10.1192/bjp.bp.113.129908.
    1. Skingley A, Clift SM, Coulton SP, Rodriguez J. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a participative community singing programme as a health promotion initiative for older people: protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:142.
    1. Camic PM, Williams CM, Meeten F. Does a “singing together group” improve the quality of life of people with a dementia and their carers? A pilot evaluation study. Dementia. 2013;12:157–176.
    1. Yen IH, Michael YL, Perdue L. Neighborhood environment in studies of health of older adults: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37:455–463.
    1. Dickens A, Richards S, Greaves C, Campbell J. Interventions targeting social isolation in older people: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:647.
    1. Cattan M. Preventing social isolation and loneliness among older people: a systematic review of health promotion interventions. Ageing Soc. 2005;25:41–67.
    1. Medical Advisory Secretariat. Dwelling seniors: an evidence based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2008;8
    1. Findlay R. Interventions to reduce social isolation amongst older people: where is the evidence ? Ageing Soc. 2003;23 10.1017/S0144686X03001296.
    1. Hagan R, Manktelow R, Taylor BJ, Mallett J. Reducing loneliness amongst older people: a systematic search and narrative review. Aging Ment Health. 2014;18:683–693.
    1. Choi M, Kong S, Jung D. Computer and internet interventions for loneliness and depression in older adults: a meta-analysis. Healthc Inform Res. 2012;18:191–198.
    1. Milligan C, Neary D, Payne S, Hanratty B, Irwin P, Dowrick C. Older men and social activity: a scoping review of Men’s Sheds and other gendered interventions. Ageing Soc. 2015:1–29. 10.1017/S0144686X14001524.
    1. Lafortune L, Kelly S, Olanrewaju O, Cowan A. Changing risk behaviours and promoting cognitive health in older adults an evidence-based resource for local authorities and commissioners. London: Public Health England; 2016.
    1. Heaven B, Brown LJE, White M, Errington L, Mathers JC, Moffatt S. Supporting well-being in retirement through meaningful social roles: systematic review of intervention studies. Milbank Q. 2013;91:222–287.
    1. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination . Interventions for loneliness and social isolation. 2014.
    1. Clift S, Hancox G, Staricoff R, Christine W. Siging and health: a systematic mapping and review of non-clinical research. Sydney; 2008.
    1. Keogh JWL, Kilding A, Pidgeon P, Ashley L, Gillis D. Physical benefits of dancing for healthy older adults: a review. J Aging Phys Act. 2009;17:479–500.
    1. Lötzke D, Ostermann T, Büssing A. Argentine tango in Parkinson disease—a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Neurol. 2015;15:226.
    1. Egger M, Zellweger-Zahner T. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet. 1997;350:326–329.
    1. Pope DP, Mishra V, Thompson L, Siddiqui AR, Rehfuess EA, Weber M, et al. Risk of low birth weight and stillbirth associated with indoor air pollution from solid fuel use in developing countries. Epidemiol Rev. 2010;32:70–81.
    1. Puzzolo E, Pope D, Stanistreet D, Rehfuess EA, Bruce NG. Clean fuels for resource-poor settings: a systematic review of barriers and enablers to adoption and sustained use. Environ Res. 2016;146:218–234.
    1. Voss PH, Rehfuess EA. Quality appraisal in systematic reviews of public health interventions: an empirical study on the impact of choice of tool on meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013;67:98–104.
    1. Petticrew M. Time to rethink the systematic review catechism? Moving from “what works” to “what happens”. Syst Rev. 2015;4:36.
    1. Whitehead M, Dahlgren G. Concepts and principles for tackling social inequities in health: levelling up. Part 1. Copenhagen: World Health Organization; 2007.
    1. Marmot M. Fair society, healthy lives. vol. 126 Suppl. 2010. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2012.05.014. . Accessed 2 Jun 2017.
    1. McCambridge J, Witton J, Elbourne DR. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:267–277.
    1. Rebok GW, Carlson MC, Barron JS, Frick KD, Mcgill S, Parisi JM, et al. Experience Corps®: a civic engagement-based public health intervention in the public schools. 2011.
    1. Clift S, Skingley A, Coulton S, Rodriguez J. A controlled evaluation of the health benefits of a participative community singing programme for older people (Silver Song Clubs) 2012.
    1. Hallam S, Creech A, Varvarigou M, McQueen H. Perceived benefits of active engagement with making music in community settings. Int J Community Music. 2012;5:155–174.
    1. Slegers K, van Boxtel MP. Actual use of computers and the internet by older adults: potential benefits and risks. In: Slegers K, van Boxtel MP, editors. Engag. older adults with Mod. Technol: Internet use Inf. access needs: IGI Global; 2013. p. 161–90. 10.4018/978-1-4666-1966-1.ch009.
    1. Weintraub APC, Killian TS. Perceptions of the impact of intergenerational programming on the physical well-being of participants in adult day services. J Intergener Relatsh. 2009;7:355–370.

Source: PubMed

3
订阅