Strategies that are designed to reduce loneliness can make some difference, but their overall impact is modest.
Research published by the American Psychological Association found whilst interventions can help, they don’t offer a complete solution to loneliness.
“Loneliness is something most people experience at some point in their lives. It can be seen as a fundamental aspect of being human and may even serve an adaptive purpose. However, when it persists or remains unaddressed, loneliness has negative effects on health and well-being. In recent years, loneliness has increasingly been recognized as a public health issue, with growing calls for suitable actions,” Mathias Lasgaard, PhD, lead author of the study and a Professor in the Department of Psychology at University of Southern Denmark told Theravive.
“We undertook this meta-analytic review to advance our understanding of loneliness interventions and their effectiveness. When we initiated our project, no study had systematically examined the overall impact of loneliness interventions over the preceding decade – a period during which research in this field had expanded considerably. We therefore set out to examine the available evidence.”
The meta-analysis included 280 studies that examined the impact of different interventions aimed at reducing loneliness.
“We analyzed five primary types of intervention strategies aimed at reducing loneliness… One: social support interventions are intended to provide regular care and companionship while fostering a sense of connection, offering emotional and/or instrumental support (e.g., befriending services, mentorship programs). Two: social network interventions are intended to expand participants’ social networks by creating opportunities for social interaction (e.g., senior meetings, activity groups, choirs, art programs, community excursions). Three: social and emotional skills training interventions are intended to improve participants’ social and emotional skills (e.g., role playing, conversation-based training),” Lasgaard said.
“Four: Psychological interventions consist of therapy or counseling services aiming to address cognition, attention, behavior, or emotions (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness programs). Five: Psychoeducation interventions are intended to increase knowledge about loneliness through an educational input (e.g., school-based educational programs).”
“The findings indicate that interventions designed to reduce loneliness are effective across diverse types of interventions and populations. But effects are small to moderate – the impact of the interventions seems to be somewhat limited. Psychological interventions appeared to be the most effective intervention strategy for reducing loneliness, demonstrating a moderate effect, while social and emotional skills training, social network interventions, and social support interventions showed small to moderate effects.”
According to the department of Health and Human Services, roughly half of Americans report feeling lonely. Loneliness can be as harmful to health as smoking up to 15 cigarettes every day.
Around the world, from local communities to governments, different approaches are being taken to address loneliness.
“Our findings show that an increasing number of interventions for loneliness are now becoming available across different age groups. Although the effects are generally small to moderate, it is encouraging that loneliness can be reduced through a variety of interventions and in diverse populations,” Lasgaard said.
“Building on this foundation, our research group is collaborating with a range of stakeholders to help translate the findings into practice. For instance, our findings suggest that group-based interventions may be more effective than individual approaches and that there is no strong rationale for prioritizing individual-based interventions unless they are specifically required to address participants’ needs. The large number of new evaluation studies is also noteworthy. Efforts to mitigate loneliness are being developed and implemented in many different sectors—including nongovernmental organizations, institutions, and workplaces. This indicates that we are moving closer to identifying which interventions are both effective and scalable.”
The authors note their research is likely the largest literature review to date examining the effect of loneliness interventions. 55% of the studied in the meta-analysis were published between 2020 and March 2024 and the authors note this means the field is expanding at an impressive rate.
The findings are a reminder that interventions can be effective, but more work is still needed to address the global problem of loneliness.
“By bringing together data from these many studies, we found that loneliness can be reduced through targeted interventions. Efforts to address loneliness are effective, at least to some extent. The interventions we examined showed benefits across different age groups and with different strategies, suggesting that people of all ages can experience positive effects, and that a range of approaches can be somewhat useful,” Lasgaard said.