ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Mapping loneliness prevention and alleviation interventions: a comparative survey of Basel, Bern, Zurich, and Dublin.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Loneliness affects 38% of Swiss residents, higher than the global average. Considering that loneliness is associated with increased morbidity and mortality akin to smoking, drinking and obesity, the state of loneliness represents a serious health risk. To date no study has been undertaken to assess the landscape of loneliness prevention and alleviation interventions (LPAIs) in a high-income country like Switzerland and to compare this to other contexts. Results: NGOs delivered 84% of Swiss and 89% of Dublin LPAIs; direct state provision was ≤5%. Yet 60-75% of providers received some public funding, and 82% (CH) versus 93% (IE) were free to users. Older adults dominated addressees, while middle-aged adults, adolescents and chronically ill people were underserved. Support services and social-activity formats dominated, while evidence-based psychological interventions were scarce (<15%). LPAIs placed less focus on the Social Relationship Expectation variable Generativity, with Dublin LPAIs covering more Social Relationship Expectation domains and offering greater virtual access (78%) than Swiss counterparts (≤35%). Discussion: The landscape is rich yet fragmented. Heavy reliance on NGO delivery and ad-hoc funding jeopardises sustainability and equity. Under-representation of active, generative and tech-enabled formats signals possible low-cost missed opportunities for areas where loneliness is rising fastest. State leadership, strategic funding and digital innovation could close these gaps. Conclusion: High-income cities host many LPAIs, but without coordinated public-health strategies they fall short of preventive potential. Governments should mainstream, subsidise and modernise interventions to meet the multidimensional challenge of urban loneliness.
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.