Loneliness as a public health challenge: a systematic review and meta-analysis to inform policy and practice
Loneliness is a recognized public health risk factor associated with increased morbidity and mortality. However, the effectiveness of interventions targeting loneliness remains unclear—particularly in relation to baseline severity. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed intervention effec...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2025 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Pompeu Fabra |
| Repositorio: | Repositorio Digital de la UPF |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositori.upf.edu:10230/71419 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10230/71419 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe15070131 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Loneliness Meta-analysis Intervention efficacy Baseline severity Public health |
| Sumario: | Loneliness is a recognized public health risk factor associated with increased morbidity and mortality. However, the effectiveness of interventions targeting loneliness remains unclear—particularly in relation to baseline severity. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed intervention effectiveness and the influence of baseline severity and intervention characteristics. A total of 25 studies were included, of which 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs; k = 21) were meta-analyzed. Interventions produced a moderate pooled effect at post-intervention (Hedge’s g = 0.65, 95% CI [0.05, 1.26], p = 0.037), though with high heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses confirmed a moderate effect (g = 0.55, 95% CI [0.22, 0.88], p = 0.003). Higher baseline loneliness predicted greater intervention effects (b = 0.04, 95% CI [0.02, 0.07], Z = 3.36, p < 0.001), with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) showing the largest effect size (g = 0.73). No significant effects were observed at follow-up. These findings underscore the need for dual strategies: targeted psychological interventions (e.g., CBT) for individuals with severe loneliness, and universal, context-based approaches for the broader population. This aligns with Geoffrey Rose’s distinction between individual-level treatment and population-level prevention and highlights the urgency of embedding loneliness interventions into public health frameworks and policy agendas focused on promoting social connectedness and equity. |
|---|