Trial reportJournal of consulting and clinical psychology2025
A randomized controlled trial comparing brief online self-guided interventions for loneliness.
Trial report in Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Features and functionality of the Iterapi platform for internet-based psychological treatments: An update.Internet interventions · 2026Article
- Popular Online Content as a Treatment-as-Usual Control in Digital Mental Health Intervention Trials: Secondary Analysis of Two Online Randomized Controlled Trials With Repeated Measures.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- A Crowdsourced Megastudy of 12 Digital Single-Session Interventions for Depression in American Adults.Research square · 2025Article
- Longer Single-Session Interventions May Not Be Better: Evidence From Two Randomized Controlled Trials With Online Workers Facing Mental-Health Struggles.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2025Article
- What makes Internet-based interventions work?World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveLoneliness is a global health issue, but current loneliness interventions are not scalable enough to reach many who might benefit from them. Brief online interventions could greatly expand access to evidence-based loneliness interventions.
methodWe conducted a preregistered three-armed trial (
resultsLoneliness decreased between baseline and Week 8 across all conditions (
conclusionsAn SSI for loneliness was not significantly less effective than a longer loneliness intervention and had a much higher completion rate. Yet, against our hypotheses, neither loneliness intervention reduced loneliness more than an active control SSI did. Future work should aim to design more effective SSIs for loneliness and identify populations for which SSIs might be most helpful. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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.