ReviewBJPsych open2025
The impact of loneliness on healthcare costs and service utilisation and the cost-effectiveness of loneliness interventions: systematic review.
Review in BJPsych open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the social return on investment of nature-based social prescribing to alleviate loneliness: a randomized controlled trial in Barcelona.Frontiers in public health · 2026Trial
- Loneliness, Chronic Conditions, and Healthcare Engagement in Japan: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study.JMA journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLoneliness is associated with several physical and mental health problems, yet its costs to the healthcare system remain unclear.
aimsThe current study aimed to review literature on the health and social care impacts of loneliness, and review economic evaluations of loneliness interventions.
methodWe conducted a systematic review of studies published from 2008 to April 2025 by searching five bibliographic databases, grey literature and reference lists of systematic reviews. Studies estimating health and social care cost/expenditure, and on health resource utilisation, were included to assess the impact of loneliness on the health system. Return on investment, social return on investment and cost-effectiveness evaluations were included to assess the economic impact of loneliness interventions. We conducted quality appraisal and narrative synthesis of results.
resultsWe included 53 studies. Eight estimated the healthcare cost/expenditure of loneliness, 33 reported healthcare resource use and 19 were economic evaluations of interventions. Findings relating to the cost/expenditure of loneliness and service use were inconsistent: some studies reported excess costs/expenditure and service use, whereas others found lower costs/expenditure and service use. Economic evaluation studies indicated that loneliness interventions can be cost-effective, but were not consistently cost-saving or effective in reducing loneliness.
conclusionsFindings on the impact of loneliness on the healthcare system and economic evaluations of loneliness interventions were varied. Therefore, we cannot derive confident conclusions from this review. To address evidence gaps, future research relating to social care, younger populations, direct healthcare costs of loneliness and randomised controlled trials with long-term follow-ups should be prioritised.
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.