ArticleBMC psychiatry2024
Young people's views on the acceptability and feasibility of loneliness interventions for their age group.
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.
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.
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.
Tackling Youth Loneliness in Urban Areas: Measuring Feasibility, Acceptability, and Benefits of a Community-based Intervention.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of Technology-Based Interventions on the Reduction of Loneliness: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Addressing loneliness in emerging adults in primary care: a pilot feasibility study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- The bi-directional influence of social functioning and mental health symptoms during psychological treatment: A cross-lagged analysis in young adults.International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.