SynthesisAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences2025
Systematic review and meta-analysis of mechanistic loneliness interventions for older adults.
Synthesis in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comment on "Adaptation Processes to Loneliness Among Older Adults: A Qualitative Study".Geriatrics & gerontology international · 2026Article
- [Geriatric medicine shapes the Future : Recommendations for modern Geriatric Medicine that places older people and their needs at the centre].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2026Review
- Nurse-led pathways for loneliness and social isolation in older adults: a narrative review of assessment, relational mechanisms, and implementation.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
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
The current study aimed to evaluate specific mechanisms of interventions to improve loneliness among older adults. EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases were searched for articles published through June 2024. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that sought to improve loneliness in older adults, were published in English, and used previously published measures to assess loneliness. We used random-effect models to calculate pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) for each mechanistic approach, and random-effects meta-regression to assess heterogeneity of studies. Thirty-five RCTs from 31 published studies (total N = 5291 participants) met review criteria, including six distress tolerance interventions, 11 cognitive engagement and restructuring interventions, 12 social behavioral activation interventions, and six acceptance of aging interventions. Study samples included older adults from the community. Meta-analysis revealed significant pooled SMDs for improving loneliness (pooled SMD = -1.11 (95% CI [-2.19, -0.03], p = 0.043), 25 studies). Heterogeneity of studies was high (I
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.