Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40050496›Full record

SynthesisJournal of public health policy2025

What works to reduce loneliness: a rapid systematic review of 101 interventions.

Joanna M Blodgett, Katie Tiley, Frances Harkness, Margherita Musella

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of public health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

4 authors.

Joanna M BlodgettKohlrabi, Manchester, SK4 3HJ, UK. Joanna.blodgett@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7684-3571
Katie TileyKohlrabi, Manchester, SK4 3HJ, UK.
Frances HarknessKohlrabi, Manchester, SK4 3HJ, UK.
Margherita MusellaWhat Works Centre for Wellbeing, London, SW1H 9EA, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

LonelinessHumansSocial InteractionSocial SupportEvaluationInterventionLonelinessMeta-analysisPre-postRapid review

Identifiers

PMID40050496
PMCPMC12119363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.