SynthesisJournal of public health policy2025
What works to reduce loneliness: a rapid systematic review of 101 interventions.
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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy of Technology-Based Interventions on the Reduction of Loneliness: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Effectiveness of a nature-based social prescribing intervention on loneliness and health-related quality of life among vulnerable urban adults (RECETAS-BCN): an observer-blinded randomised controlled trial.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
- Loneliness as a sex-specific risk factor for cognitive aging.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Review
- The impact of health literacy on quality of life in patients with chronic diseases.Frontiers in public health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.