What works to reduce loneliness: a rapid systematic review of 101 interventions.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Joanna M Blodgett, Katie Tiley, Frances Harkness, Margherita Musella
{"title":"What works to reduce loneliness: a rapid systematic review of 101 interventions.","authors":"Joanna M Blodgett, Katie Tiley, Frances Harkness, Margherita Musella","doi":"10.1057/s41271-025-00561-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This review evaluates the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing loneliness across all age groups. Studies were eligible if alleviation of loneliness was one of ≤ 3 aims, and loneliness was assessed pre- and post-intervention using a validated quantitative measure. Random-effects meta-analyses of standardised mean differences (SMD) assessed pre-post-intervention differences in loneliness, including comparing control and intervention groups. A comprehensive search of peer-reviewed and grey literature sources identified 95 studies covering 101 interventions. Psychological interventions had the largest SMD effect size (n = 23: - 0.79 [95%CI: - 1.19, - 0.38]), followed by social interaction-based interventions (n = 23; - 0.50 [- 0.78, - 0.17]), social support-based interventions (n = 46; - 0.34 [- 0.45, - 0.22]), and finally interventions involving multiple themes (n = 9). Findings highlight the effectiveness of psychological and social interaction strategies in reducing loneliness. Future research should address gaps related to intervention types and populations, emphasising randomised controlled designs. Policymakers and practitioners can use these insights to prioritise interventions fostering social connections and psychological support across diverse settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":50070,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Health Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-025-00561-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This review evaluates the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing loneliness across all age groups. Studies were eligible if alleviation of loneliness was one of ≤ 3 aims, and loneliness was assessed pre- and post-intervention using a validated quantitative measure. Random-effects meta-analyses of standardised mean differences (SMD) assessed pre-post-intervention differences in loneliness, including comparing control and intervention groups. A comprehensive search of peer-reviewed and grey literature sources identified 95 studies covering 101 interventions. Psychological interventions had the largest SMD effect size (n = 23: - 0.79 [95%CI: - 1.19, - 0.38]), followed by social interaction-based interventions (n = 23; - 0.50 [- 0.78, - 0.17]), social support-based interventions (n = 46; - 0.34 [- 0.45, - 0.22]), and finally interventions involving multiple themes (n = 9). Findings highlight the effectiveness of psychological and social interaction strategies in reducing loneliness. Future research should address gaps related to intervention types and populations, emphasising randomised controlled designs. Policymakers and practitioners can use these insights to prioritise interventions fostering social connections and psychological support across diverse settings.

本综述评估了旨在减少各年龄段人群孤独感的干预措施的有效性。如果缓解孤独感是≤3个目标之一,且孤独感在干预前和干预后均使用有效的定量测量方法进行评估,则符合研究条件。标准化均值差异(SMD)随机效应荟萃分析评估了干预前后孤独感的差异,包括对照组和干预组的比较。通过对同行评议和灰色文献资料的全面搜索,发现了 95 项研究,涉及 101 项干预措施。心理干预的SMD效应大小最大(n = 23:- 0.79 [95%CI: - 1.19, - 0.38]),其次是基于社会互动的干预(n = 23; - 0.50 [- 0.78, - 0.17]),基于社会支持的干预(n = 46; - 0.34 [- 0.45, - 0.22]),最后是涉及多个主题的干预(n = 9)。研究结果凸显了心理和社会互动策略在减少孤独感方面的有效性。未来的研究应解决干预类型和人群方面的不足,并强调随机对照设计。政策制定者和从业人员可以利用这些见解,优先考虑在不同环境中促进社会联系和心理支持的干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Public Health Policy
Journal of Public Health Policy 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
62
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Public Health Policy (JPHP) will continue its 35 year tradition: an accessible source of scholarly articles on the epidemiologic and social foundations of public health policy, rigorously edited, and progressive. JPHP aims to create a more inclusive public health policy dialogue, within nations and among them. It broadens public health policy debates beyond the ''health system'' to examine all forces and environments that impinge on the health of populations. It provides an exciting platform for airing controversy and framing policy debates - honing policies to solve new problems and unresolved old ones. JPHP welcomes unsolicited original scientific and policy contributions on all public health topics. New authors are particularly encouraged to enter debates about how to improve the health of populations and reduce health disparities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信