What is the effect of intergenerational activities on the wellbeing and mental health of older people?: A systematic review.

Background: Opportunities for social connection between generations have diminished over the last few decades around the world as a result of changes in the way that we live and work. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated loneliness for many with young and old being kept apart for safety. The Public Health England prevention concordat for better mental health (Office for Health Improvement and Disparities) aims to bring a prevention-focused approach to improving public mental health. The concordat promotes evidence-based planning and commissioning to increase the impact on reducing health inequalities using sustainable and cost-effective interventions that impact on the wider determinants of mental health and wellbeing for children and young people and older people. Intergenerational activities could provide an opportunity to support both populations. In 2023, we produced an evidence and gap map to illustrate the amount and variety of research on intergenerational interventions and the gaps in research that still exist in this area. The review conducted here is based on the evidence in that map. Objectives: This systematic review examines the impact of intergenerational interventions on the wellbeing and mental health of older people and identifies areas for future research as well as key messages for service commissioners. Search Methods: We searched an evidence and gap map published in 2022 (comprehensive searches conducted July 2021 and updated June 2023) to identify randomised controlled trials of intergenerational interventions that report mental health and wellbeing outcomes for older people. Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of intergenerational interventions that involved unrelated younger and older people with at least one skipped generation between them and reported mental health or wellbeing outcomes for older people were included in this review. Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Campbell Collaboration. We conducted data extraction and Cochrane risk of bias assessments in EPPI reviewer. Where data allowed meta-analyses were conducted in STATA. Main Results: This review includes 14 trials from six different countries. The trials had some important methodological weaknesses. Interventions were mainly delivered in-person and often in groups. They included visiting programmes, school volunteering programmes, music-based interventions and task-oriented interventions such as activities set in a multigenerational park, reminiscing activities, aggression management programmes, learning a language, making local environmental changes and in-school project work. Intergenerational interventions showed a small positive trend towards improving self-esteem (effect size [ES]: 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.35, 1.01) and depression (ES: 0.19, 95% CI: -0.23, 0.60) for older people participating. However, due to the small study sizes and low number of studies available, we cannot be confident about any effects. The results for other mental health and wellbeing outcomes are reported but due to little overlap in similar assessments across the studies, we could not combine them to assess the strength of evidence. There were no data about social isolation, spiritual health or sense of community. There are no long-term studies and no data on equity. We still know very little about what works and how or why. Whilst some interventions do use theories and logic to inform their development others do not. More exploration of this is needed. Authors' Conclusions: Commissioners and intervention developers should ensure interventions provide sufficient theoretical evidence for the logic behind the proposed intervention and should improve their consideration of equity within the interventions Research on intergenerational interventions need more consistent and agreed measures for reporting outcomes including community outcomes (core outcome sets). More understanding is needed on how best to measure 'community' outcomes. Research on intergenerational interventions should measure outcomes for BOTH the older and younger population engaged in the intervention-these may or may not be the same outcomes reflected in both populations. Further research is needed on the long-term impact of interventions on outcomes (whether participants need to keep being involved in an 'intervention' to continue to benefit) and sustainability of interventions beyond the initial funding of the research project. Supporting this our stakeholders highlighted that interventions that are initiated for research and then end (usually within a year) are not helpful.

Priming scalar and ad hoc enrichment in children.

Sentences can be enriched by considering what the speaker does not say but could have done. Children, however, struggle to derive one type of such enrichments, scalar implicatures. A popular explanation for this, the lexical alternatives account, is that they do not have lexical knowledge of the appropriate alternatives to generate the implicature. Namely, children are unaware of the scalar relationship between some and all. We conducted a priming study with N = 72 children, aged 5;1 years, and an adult sample, N = 51, to test this hypothesis. Participants were exposed to prime trials of strong, alternative, or weak sentences involving scalar or ad hoc expressions, and then saw a target trial that could be interpreted in either way. Consistent with previous studies, children were reluctant to derive scalar implicatures. However, there were two novel findings. (1) Children responded with twice the rate of ad hoc implicature responses than adults, suggesting that the implicature was the developmentally prior interpretation for ad hoc expressions. (2) Children showed robust priming effects, suggesting that children are aware of the scalar relationship between some and all, even if they choose not to derive the implicature. This suggests that the root cause of the scalar implicature deficit is not due to the absence of lexical knowledge of the relationship between some and all.

PROTOCOL: What is the effect of intergenerational activities on the wellbeing and mental health of older people?

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: This systematic review will examine the impact of intergenerational interventions on the mental health and wellbeing of older people and will identify areas for future research as well as key messages for service commissioners.

Non-familial intergenerational interventions and their impact on social and mental wellbeing of both younger and older people-A mapping review and evidence and gap map.

Background: Opportunities for social connection between generations in the UK have diminished over the last few decades because of changes in the way that we live and work. The decline in communal spaces such as libraries, youth clubs and community centres mean that there are fewer opportunities to meet and mix socially with other generations outside our own families. Increased working hours, improved technology, changes in family patterns, relationship breakdowns within families and migration are also believed to be contributory factors to generation segregation. There are many potential economic, social and political impacts of generations living separate and parallel lives, for example, higher health and social care costs, an undermining of trust between generations reduced social capital, a reliance on the media to form understanding of others' viewpoints and higher levels of anxiety and loneliness. Intergenerational programmes and activities can take many forms and are delivered in many settings.  Evidence suggests that intergenerational activity can have a positive impact on participants, for example, in reducing loneliness and exclusion for both older people and children and young people, improving mental health, increasing mutual understanding and addressing important issues such as ageism, housing and care. There are currently no other EGMs that exist that address this type of intervention; however, it would complement existing EGMs addressing child welfare. Objectives: To identify, appraise and bring together the evidence on the use of intergenerational practice, to answer the following specific research questions: What is the volume, nature and diversity of research on, and evaluation of, intergenerational practice and learning?What approaches have been used to deliver intergenerational activities and programmes that may be relevant to providing such services during and in the subsequent recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic?What promising intergenerational activities and programmes have been developed and are being used but have not yet been subject to formal evaluation? Search Methods: We searched MEDLINE (via OvidSp), EMBASE (via OvidSp), PsycINFO (via OvidSp), CINAHL (via EBSCOHost), Social Policy and Practice (via OvidSp), Health Management Information Consortium (via OvidSp), Ageline (via EBSCOhost), ASSIA (via ProQuest), Social Science Citations Index (via Web of Science), ERIC (via EBSCOhost), Community Care Inform Children, Research in Practice for Children, ChildData (via Social Policy and Practice), the Campbell Library, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the CENTRAL database between 22 and 30 July 2021. We searched for additional grey literature via the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (via Web of Science) and ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global and via relevant organisation websites, for example, Age UK, Age International, the Centre for Ageing Better, Barnado's, Children's Commission, UNICEF, Generations Working Together, the Intergenerational Foundation, Linking Generations and The Beth Johnson Foundation) and the Ottawa initiative called Older Adults and Students for Intergenerational support. Selection Criteria: Any intervention that brings older and younger people together with the purpose of interacting to achieve positive health and/or social and/or educational outcomes from any study design including systematic reviews, randomised controlled studies, observational studies, surveys and qualitative studies are included. The titles and abstracts, and later full texts, of records identified by the search methods were screened against inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. Data Collection and Analysis: Data extraction was undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second with any inconsistencies identified and resolved through discussion. The data extraction tool was developed on EPPI reviewer and was modified and tested through stakeholder and advisor consultation, and piloting of the process. The tool was informed by the research question and the structure of the map. We did not undertake quality appraisal of the included studies. Main Results: Our searches identified 12,056 references, after screening 500 research articles were included in the evidence gap map conducted across 27 countries. We identified 26 systematic reviews, 236 quantitative comparative studies (of which 38 were randomised controlled trials), 227 were qualitative studies (or had a qualitative element), 105 were observational studies (or had elements of observational methods) and 82 used a mixed methods approach. The outcomes reported in the research cover mental health (n = 73), physical health (n = 62), attainment and knowledge (n = 165), agency (n = 174), mental wellbeing (n = 224), loneliness and social isolation (n = 54), attitudes towards the other generation (n = 283), intergenerational interactions (n = 196), peer interactions (n = 30) and health promotion (n = 23) and including mutual outcomes such as the impact on community (n = 37) and perceptions on the sense of community (n = 43). Gaps in the evidence that were identified include: research that reports on mutual, societal and community outcomes of intergenerational interventions; more research on interventions classified as levels 1-4 and level 7 on the Intergenerational Engagement Scale, mental health, loneliness, social isolation, peer interactions, physical health and health promotion outcomes in children and young people; health promotion in older people; outcomes centred on care giver wellbeing, mental health and attitudes; economic outcomes; process outcomes and adverse or unexpected outcomes. Authors' Conclusions: Whilst a substantional amount of research on intergenerational interventions has been identified in this EGM, as well as the gaps identified above, there is a need to explore promising interventions not yet formally evaluated. Research on this topic is gradually increasing, and systematic reviews will be important to determine how and why interventions are or are not beneficial. However, the primary research needs to build more cohesively so that the findings can be comparable and avoid research waste. The EGM presented here will nevertheless be a useful resource for decision-makers allowing them to explore the evidence with regard to the different interventions that may be relevant to their population needs and the settings or resources available to them.

PROTOCOL: Intergenerational interventions and their effect on social and mental wellbeing of both children and older people-A mapping review and evidence and gap map.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: identify, appraise and bring together the evidence on the use of intergenerational practice.