Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40698012›Full record

ReviewInternet interventions2025

Digital bridges to social connection: A systematic review and meta-analysis of digital interventions for loneliness and social isolation.

Thomas Hansen, Rune Johansen, Benedicte Kirkøen, Kim Stene-Larsen, Melanie Straiton, Ragnhild A Tornes, Anne Reneflot

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Internet interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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
–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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Fostering Social Connection: Progress and Opportunities in VA and Beyond.Psychiatric research and clinical practice · 2026
    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

7 authors.

Thomas HansenDepartment of Mental Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Rune JohansenDepartment of Mental Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Benedicte KirkøenDepartment of Mental Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Kim Stene-LarsenDepartment of Mental Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Melanie StraitonDepartment of Mental Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Ragnhild A TornesDepartment of Library Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Anne ReneflotDepartment of Mental Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As loneliness and social isolation emerge as pressing public health concerns, identifying effective interventions is essential. Digital solutions offer flexible, scalable, and cost-effective approaches, yet their effectiveness remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis assess the impact of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on digital interventions to reduce loneliness and social isolation. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we searched seven databases and grey literature (2022-) and applied random-effects models to pool effect sizes by intervention type. A total of 40 RCTs involving 6062 participants were included, with one-third focusing on younger individuals. Loneliness was assessed in 36 studies, while eight examined social isolation. Interventions were classified as psychological (k = 25), social (k = 4), activity-based (k = 4), robot-based (k = 4), and social media reduction (k = 5). Psychological interventions-especially those with group or social components-along with group-based activities and robotic pets, were effective in reducing loneliness. In contrast, social contact interventions, self-guided individual activities, and conversational robots showed limited impact. Social media reduction interventions suggested potential benefits, though results were not statistically significant. The evidence base exhibited moderate to high risk of bias, heterogeneity, and limited long-term follow-up. We provide specific recommendations for future interventions and research, including leveraging digital technologies for enhanced personalization, using digital tools for signposting non-digital interventions, systematically comparing digital and non-digital versions of the same intervention, and, most critically, examining the impact of increasingly popular AI-driven and humanlike social chatbots.

Indexed as

DigitalInterventionLonelinessMeta-analysisRCTsSocial isolationSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40698012
PMCPMC12281013

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.