Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38654301›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2024

Young people's views on the acceptability and feasibility of loneliness interventions for their age group.

Sharon Eager, Sonia Johnson, Alexandra Pitman, Manuela Uribe, Pamela Qualter, Eiluned Pearce

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06805136 (Tackling Youth Loneliness in Urban Areas), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06805136 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Tackling Youth Loneliness in Urban Areas: Measuring Feasibility, Acceptability, and Benefits of a Community-based Intervention.

TypeinterventionalSponsorQueen Mary University of LondonRan2025 to 2028Enrolled70ConditionsLonelinessArmsCommunity-based social interaction intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sharon EagerDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, W1T 7NF, London, UK. sharon.eager.20@ucl.ac.uk.
Sonia JohnsonDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, W1T 7NF, London, UK.
Alexandra PitmanDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, W1T 7NF, London, UK.
Manuela UribeDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, W1T 7NF, London, UK.
Pamela QualterManchester Institute of Education, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Eiluned PearceDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, W1T 7NF, London, UK.
University College London · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

UK Research and Innovation ES/S004440/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLoneliness is a frequently reported problem for young people aged 16 to 24 years old. A variety of interventions have been developed (but in most cases not extensively evaluated) to try and tackle loneliness in this age group. These include interpersonal, intrapersonal, and social approaches that vary in their content and mechanisms of action. The current study aimed to qualitatively examine young peoples' views on the acceptability and feasibility of different loneliness interventions.

methodsYoung people from 16 to 24 years old living in the United Kingdom who self-identified as having experienced loneliness were recruited to participate in this study. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews to assess their views on the acceptability and feasibility of loneliness interventions for their age group. Interviews were analysed using inductive reflexive thematic analysis.

resultsOur analysis of 23 individual interview transcripts identified six themes. These related to the appropriate stage for intervention and how different types of strategies may be best suited to particular contexts; the key facilitators and barriers to engaging young people in an intervention; considerations for optimising the delivery of an intervention; divergent views on technology use in strategies to manage loneliness; the scope of an intervention and whether it takes a targeted or general approach; and the idea of combining different options within an intervention to allow tailoring to individual preferences and nature of loneliness.

conclusionsThese findings demonstrate the need for continued development of individualised interventions designed to help manage loneliness in this age group. Future loneliness strategies should be co-produced with young people to ensure that they suit the varying needs of this population.

Indexed as

Feasibility StudiesLonelinessPatient Acceptance of Health CareAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleQualitative ResearchUnited KingdomYoung AdultAcceptabilityAdolescentsFeasibilityInterventionsInterviewLonelinessStrategiesYoung adults

Identifiers

PMID38654301
PMCPMC11040932
OpenAlexW4395050351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.