ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Self-initiated strategies for managing loneliness: insights from two large-scale surveys.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Most of the research on reducing loneliness has taken a deficit-based approach that focuses on formal interventions rather than an asset-based approach that empowers individuals to manage their own loneliness. There is little understanding of the self-initiated strategies individuals use to manage their loneliness, and a lack of clarity on how perceived effectiveness and use of those strategies differs across sociodemographic characteristics. Methods: Secondary analysis of two large-scale datasets (BBC Loneliness Experiment and EU Loneliness Survey) was conducted to explore self-initiated loneliness management strategies implemented and perceived to be effective by individuals ages 16 to 99 years who reported frequent loneliness (N = 18354). Respondents selected the strategies they used from a list of 12 pre-defined options in the EU dataset, and the strategies they perceived as effective from a list of 21 options in the BBC dataset. Frequencies of use and perceived effectiveness for each strategy were calculated, and binary logistic regression analyses assessed whether gender, age, income, and geographical region were significant predictors of strategy use and perceived effectiveness. Results: The most frequently used strategies were seeing friends, family members or other loved ones (31.8%) and taking time for yourself (28.9%). The strategies most frequently perceived as effective were finding activities to distract you when on your own (58.5%) and dedicating time to work, study, or hobbies (52.6%). A strategy used infrequently was contacting a specialized charity (5.3%), and introducing yourself to neighbors (9.5%) was least often perceived as effective. Gender, age, income, and region significantly predicted the use and perceived effectiveness of different strategies. Conclusion: Individuals experiencing loneliness engage in and perceive as effective various self-initiated, unstructured strategies to manage their loneliness. Future research should consider integrating an asset-based approach that explores the experiences of self-initiated loneliness management, understands the choice of these strategies, and determines their effectiveness to inform future policy and practice.
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.