Interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness among minority ethnic populations in OECD countries: A scoping review

Emmanuel Sunday Nwofe; Amirah Akhtar; Sahdia Parveen; Karen Windle

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0309565

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 14, 2024
28 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Daichi Sone, Editor PONE-D-24-19431Dementia Risk Factors and Brain Health: A Scoping Review of Interventions to Reduce Social Isolation and Loneliness in Minority Ethnic PopulationsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Nwofe, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The reviewers raised several critical points which should be addressed in the revision process. Please find their comments. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 12 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Daichi Sone Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical. 3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The viewpoint is excellent, but there are various problems with the logic and details. This paper reviews studies of interventions for ethnic minority groups on social isolation and loneliness in the community. This viewpoint is important. The participants in the studies seem to be mainly non older people. The authors, sorry if my understanding is not clear enough, connect the results to the dementia prevention. This is a logical leap. I recommend a major revision to simply the scoping review of interventions in the community against SIL. If the authors absolutely insist on discussing dementia prevention, the authors should do that in the discussion section. The paper is also longer than it should be. For example, in the results section, the authors mention the scale used, however this is in the table and is not essential and should be removed. Below are the details -Abstract There are repetitions, i.e., “However, despite numerous studies on reducing social isolation and loneliness in the general population, not much is known about interventions aimed at reducing these factors in minority ethnic populations as part of dementia risk reduction efforts” -References. 52 and 62 are the same references. This was very confusing to the reader. Reviewer #2: The authors focused on social isolation and loneliness of minority ethnic populations and aimed to review the interventions for these subjects in the contect of brain health and dementia risk reduction efforts. This review paper is very well designed and well written. However, as a result, no included study was framed in the context of brain health or dementia prevention. In this long article, there is no result on dementia risk factors and brain health. This result is inevitable, however, the authors need to change the article title and Background section. (For example, short title "Dementia Risk Factors and Brain Health” is inappropriate.) I recommend the authors to exclude the context of Dementia Risk Factors and Brain Health and to review on interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness in minority ethnic populations. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309565.r001
Revision 1
19 Jul 2024 Author Response Journal Requirements Comments from the Editor Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming The manuscript has been revised following PLOS ONE’s style guidelines, including file naming (see pages 1, 9 and 11). Abstracts Comments from the Editor Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical. The abstract on the online submission form is now amended to mirror the abstract within the manuscript (see pages 1-2). Supporting Information file Comments from the Editor Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. The supporting information files have now been updated with relevant captions and in-text citations (see pages 5, 7-8 for in-text citations and page 41 for captions). Reviewer 1: Logic and details I recommend a major revision to simply the scoping review of interventions in the community against SIL. If the authors absolutely insist on discussing dementia prevention, the authors should do that in the discussion section. We have revised the manuscript to focus on those interventions that mitigate social isolation and loneliness in the community. We have changed the title of the paper to reflect this and refined the questions, the abstracts, and the introduction (see pages 1-4). While we wanted to explore protective factors for brain health, focusing on those interventions which negate social isolation and loneliness among minority ethnic populations, we found no papers that incorporated such discussion or focus. Given the importance of social isolation and loneliness as risk factors for dementia, we have brought this element together in the discussion section (see pages 31-32). Reviewer 1: The paper is also longer than it should be. For example, in the results section, the authors mention the scale used, however this is in the table and is not essential and should be removed. We have removed the scale measurement in the table and reduced the introduction to ensure that we are within the necessary word count. Reviewer 1: Abstract There are repetitions, i.e., “However, despite numerous studies on reducing social isolation and loneliness in the general population, not much is known about interventions aimed at reducing these factors in minority ethnic populations as part of dementia risk reduction efforts.” All repetitions have now been corrected and revised. Reviewer 1: References. 52 and 62 are the same references. This was very confusing to the reader. These have now been corrected with the WHO (2014) referenced at #52 and, Hynie (2018) referenced at #62. Reviewer 2: Title and context No included study was framed in the context of brain health or dementia prevention. In this long article, there is no result on dementia risk factors and brain health. This result is inevitable, however, the authors need to change the article title and Background section. (For example, short title "Dementia Risk Factors and Brain Health” is inappropriate.) We have revised the title of this paper to exclude brain health and dementia risk factors. This now reads: Interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness among minority ethnic populations in OECD Countries: A scoping review. Reviewer 2: I recommend the authors to exclude the context of Dementia Risk Factors and Brain Health and to review on interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness in minority ethnic populations. As we have previously highlighted (see Reviewer 1 logic and details), we have revised the manuscript to bring brain health into the discussion section. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309565.r002
29 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Daichi Sone, Editor PONE-D-24-19431R1Interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness among minority ethnic populations in OECD Countries: A scoping reviewPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Nwofe, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Thank you for the revision process to address the reviewers' comments. One reviewer proposed some minor issues below. Please consider them. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 12 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Daichi Sone Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The revised manuscript is very well refined, informative, and discoverable. If authors could revise a few more points, I would suggest acceptance. The finding that the interventions were divided into four categories is a very important finding, but it is not clearly mentioned in the abstract. Also, it is unbalanced to emphasize that group activities are superior because, after all, at the current level of evidence, it is impossible to say which intervention is superior. The priority should be written in favor of the need for future research. Also, in the second paragraph of the introduction, dementia is suddenly mentioned in detail, but it is not consistent with the whole picture. Perhaps authors do not want to delete it because it relates to the initial passion of this project, but introductions could be described in a simpler manner. From a medical researcher's perspective, the results section could also be shorter. It is not necessary for the reader to know detail about scale. Shorter would increase readability, but I would leave this to the editor to decide. Reviewer #2: My concern have been corrected. The revisions have made this paper more organised in its argument and easier to read. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309565.r003
Revision 2
30 Jul 2024 Author Response Journal Requirements Comments from the Editor Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. The reference list has been reviewed, and incorrect references have been corrected or removed. For example, In Reference number 2, WHO is now fully written as World Health Organisation. Reference number 34 was removed and replaced with United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population division. World Migration in Figures. OECD-UNDESA; 2013 Reference 35 is now replaced with McAuliffe M, Triandafyllidou A. Word migration report 2022. 2021. Reference 69 is now reference 66 and have been corrected from Ageing cfpo to Centre for planning on Ageing. The future ageing of the ethnic minority population of England and walesWales. 2020. Available from http://www.cpa.org.uk/BMEprojections/BMEprojections.html Reference 77 is now 74 and WHO have been written in full. Reviewer 1: Abstract The finding that the interventions were divided into four categories is a very important finding, but it is not clearly mentioned in the abstract. We have revised and included this in the abstract. Reviewer 1: Findings Also, it is unbalanced to emphasise that group activities are superior because, after all, at the current level of evidence, it is impossible to say which intervention is superior. The priority should be written in favor of the need for future research. We have revised the manuscript to indicate that the available evidence makes it difficult to determine which intervention was superior and recommended further research. (See the abstract and page 28 of the manuscript). Reviewer1: Introduction Also, in the second paragraph of the introduction, dementia is suddenly mentioned in detail, but it is not consistent with the whole picture. Perhaps authors do not want to delete it because it relates to the initial passion of this project, but introductions could be described in a simpler manner. We have revised the paragraph, identifying dementia as one amongst those other risks associated with social isolation and loneliness (see page 3 of the manuscript). Reviewer 1: Result From a medical researcher's perspective, the results section could also be shorter. It is not necessary for the reader to know detail about scale. Shorter would increase readability, but I would leave this to the editor to decide. We have reviewed the result section and removed discussion around the different measurement scales applied across the studies, except where it formed part of the narrative of effectiveness (see pages 20-23 of the Revised manuscript with track changes or 19-23 of the Manuscript). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309565.r004
5 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Daichi Sone, Editor Interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness among minority ethnic populations in OECD Countries: A scoping review PONE-D-24-19431R2 Dear Dr. Nwofe, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Daichi Sone Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309565.r005
Formally Accepted
16 Aug 2024 Acceptance Letter - Daichi Sone, Editor PONE-D-24-19431R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Nwofe, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Daichi Sone Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309565.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .