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.
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.