Trial reportFrontiers in public health2026
Assessing a facilitated social network intervention for health outcomes in lonely and socially isolated people: the pragmatic, cluster-randomized PALS trial.
Trial report 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Loneliness has received attention in recent years as an important public health issue due to its associations with poorer mental and physical health. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a facilitated social network intervention to alleviate loneliness and social isolation in community settings. Methods: A pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to compare participants receiving the intervention with a wait-list control group. This trial also included an embedded economic evaluation and took place in two cities in England, UK. The intervention was a facilitated social network tool. It connects people to local community resources to potentially increasing their social involvement. First, participants mapped out and reflected on their personal social networks. Second, they completed a questionnaire to ascertain their preferred activities, interests, and support needs linked to a local resource database. The intervention was delivered by a trained facilitator, either in person or remotely. Community-based organizations ( Results: A total of 469 adults were recruited between November 2018 and November 2021, with an 8-month in recruitment due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in 2020 (242 participants in the intervention group and 227 participants in the control group). The results showed no clinically meaningful treatment effect of the intervention on the primary (0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.74-2.16; Discussion: The findings indicate that the intervention was not effective under trial conditions. Future interventions aimed at reducing loneliness and social isolation would likely benefit from a multi-step approach that includes tailored psychological, relational, and social components and considers the structural availability of community assets. Clinical trial registration: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN19193075, ISRCTN19193075.
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.