Loneliness as a Public Health Challenge: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis to Inform Policy and Practice.

IF 2.6 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Ananda Zeas-Sigüenza, Andreas Voldstad, Pablo Ruisoto, Ana Ganho-Ávila, Raquel Guiomar, Raúl Cacho, Ferran Muntané, Joan Benach
{"title":"Loneliness as a Public Health Challenge: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis to Inform Policy and Practice.","authors":"Ananda Zeas-Sigüenza, Andreas Voldstad, Pablo Ruisoto, Ana Ganho-Ávila, Raquel Guiomar, Raúl Cacho, Ferran Muntané, Joan Benach","doi":"10.3390/ejihpe15070131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Loneliness is a recognized public health risk factor associated with increased morbidity and mortality. However, the effectiveness of interventions targeting loneliness remains unclear-particularly in relation to baseline severity. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed intervention effectiveness and the influence of baseline severity and intervention characteristics. A total of 25 studies were included, of which 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs; <i>k</i> = 21) were meta-analyzed. Interventions produced a moderate pooled effect at post-intervention (Hedge's <i>g</i> = 0.65, 95% CI [0.05, 1.26], <i>p</i> = 0.037), though with high heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses confirmed a moderate effect (<i>g</i> = 0.55, 95% CI [0.22, 0.88], <i>p</i> = 0.003). Higher baseline loneliness predicted greater intervention effects (<i>b</i> = 0.04, 95% CI [0.02, 0.07], <i>Z</i> = 3.36, <i>p</i> < 0.001), with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) showing the largest effect size (<i>g</i> = 0.73). No significant effects were observed at follow-up. These findings underscore the need for dual strategies: targeted psychological interventions (e.g., CBT) for individuals with severe loneliness, and universal, context-based approaches for the broader population. This aligns with Geoffrey Rose's distinction between individual-level treatment and population-level prevention and highlights the urgency of embedding loneliness interventions into public health frameworks and policy agendas focused on promoting social connectedness and equity.</p>","PeriodicalId":30631,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Investigation in Health Psychology and Education","volume":"15 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12293955/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Investigation in Health Psychology and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe15070131","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Loneliness is a recognized public health risk factor associated with increased morbidity and mortality. However, the effectiveness of interventions targeting loneliness remains unclear-particularly in relation to baseline severity. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed intervention effectiveness and the influence of baseline severity and intervention characteristics. A total of 25 studies were included, of which 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs; k = 21) were meta-analyzed. Interventions produced a moderate pooled effect at post-intervention (Hedge's g = 0.65, 95% CI [0.05, 1.26], p = 0.037), though with high heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses confirmed a moderate effect (g = 0.55, 95% CI [0.22, 0.88], p = 0.003). Higher baseline loneliness predicted greater intervention effects (b = 0.04, 95% CI [0.02, 0.07], Z = 3.36, p < 0.001), with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) showing the largest effect size (g = 0.73). No significant effects were observed at follow-up. These findings underscore the need for dual strategies: targeted psychological interventions (e.g., CBT) for individuals with severe loneliness, and universal, context-based approaches for the broader population. This aligns with Geoffrey Rose's distinction between individual-level treatment and population-level prevention and highlights the urgency of embedding loneliness interventions into public health frameworks and policy agendas focused on promoting social connectedness and equity.

孤独作为一项公共卫生挑战:为政策和实践提供信息的系统回顾和元分析。
孤独是公认的公共卫生风险因素,与发病率和死亡率增加有关。然而,针对孤独的干预措施的有效性仍然不清楚,特别是与基线严重程度有关。本系统综述和荟萃分析评估了干预效果以及基线严重程度和干预特征的影响。共纳入25项研究,其中16项随机对照试验(rct;K = 21)进行meta分析。干预措施在干预后产生了中等的综合效应(Hedge’s g = 0.65, 95% CI [0.05, 1.26], p = 0.037),但异质性很高。敏感性分析证实了中度影响(g = 0.55, 95% CI [0.22, 0.88], p = 0.003)。基线孤独感越高,干预效果越好(b = 0.04, 95% CI [0.02, 0.07], Z = 3.36, p < 0.001),其中认知行为治疗(CBT)效果最大(g = 0.73)。在随访中未观察到明显的效果。这些发现强调了双重策略的必要性:针对严重孤独的个体的有针对性的心理干预(例如,CBT),以及针对更广泛人群的普遍的、基于情境的方法。这与Geoffrey Rose对个人层面治疗和人群层面预防的区分一致,并强调了将孤独干预措施纳入公共卫生框架和政策议程的紧迫性,重点是促进社会联系和公平。
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
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
111
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信