The effect of circadian-adjusted LED-based lighting on sleep, daytime sleepiness and biomarkers of inflammation in a randomized controlled cross-over trial by pragmatic design in elderly care home dwellers

Sex-specific impacts of social isolation on loneliness, depressive symptoms, cognitive impairment, and biomarkers: Results from the social environment and biomarker of aging study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate sex-specific associations between social isolation and psychological outcomes and biomarkers among community-dwelling middle-aged and older adults using a nationally representative population-based cohort study.

METHODS

Data from 757 participants from the Social Environment and Biomarkers of Aging Study (SEBAS) were retrieved for analysis, and all participants were stratified by sex. The associations between social isolation and psychological outcomes (loneliness, depressive symptoms, and cognitive impairment) at the 4-year follow-up were examined by multivariate logistic regression models, and associations between social isolation and biomarkers at the 4-year follow-up were examined by multivariate generalized linear models (GLMs).

RESULTS

For men, social isolation was not associated with the development of loneliness. However, being married (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.32 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13-0.74], p<0.001) was associated with a lower risk of loneliness, indicating potential protective effects of marriage for men. On the other hand, social isolation was associated with a 2-fold higher risk of loneliness in women (aOR 2.26 [1.01-5.09], p<0.001). Social isolation was not associated with depressive symptoms after adjusting for other demographics. For men, being married (aOR 0.51 [0.26-0.99], p<0.05) or having good self-reported health (aOR 0.44 [0.21-0.92], p<0.05) was protective against depressive symptoms. For women, only good self-reported health (aOR 0.30 [0.13-0.70], p<0.01) provided protective effects against depressive symptoms. Similarly, other demographic factors (being married and having a higher educational level) but not social isolation were associated with lower risks of cognitive impairment. No significant associations were noted between social isolation and selected biomarkers.

CONCLUSIONS

Sex-different associations between social isolation and loneliness were noted; the effects of demographic factors, such as being married, self-reported health status, and high education levels, on subsequent loneliness, depression, and cognitive function were also sex-different. Further intervention studies are needed to explore sex-specific approaches to deal with the interplay of social isolation, loneliness, psychological outcomes and other demographic factors.

Impact of sensory interventions on the quality of life of long-term care residents: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

Residents in long-term care exhibit diminishing senses (hearing, sight, taste, smell or touch). The purpose of this study was to examine the available literature on the impact of sensory interventions on the quality of life of residents living in long-term care settings.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods scoping review using Arksey and O'Malley's framework. Seven databases (Medline (Ovid), PubMed (non-Medline-Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Ovid), Ageline, PsycINFO (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until 1 December 2020) were searched. Two reviewers independently screened the studies for sensory interventions using a two-step process. Eligible studies underwent data extraction and results were synthesised descriptively.

RESULTS

We screened 5551 titles and abstracts. A total of 52 articles met our inclusion criteria. Some interventions involved only one sense: hearing (n=3), sight (n=12), smell (n=4) and touch (n=15). Other interventions involved multiple senses (n=18). We grouped the interventions into 16 categories (music programmes, environmental white noise, bright light interventions, visual stimulations, olfactory stimulations, massages, therapeutic touch, tactile stimulations, physical activity plus night-time programmes, pet therapies, various stimuli interventions, Snoezelen rooms, motor and multisensory based strategies, Namaste care, environmental modifications and expressive touch activities).

CONCLUSION

This preliminary review summarised some of the available sensory interventions that will help inform a series of future systematic reviews on each of the specific interventions. The evidence-based knowledge for sensory interventions will also inform a future audit programme for assessing the presence of sensory interventions in long-term care.