Cargando…

Are loneliness interventions effective in reducing loneliness? A meta-analytic review of 128 studies: Mathias Lasgaard

 : Loneliness is widely acknowledged as a growing public health concern, accelerated by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, our knowledge about the effectiveness of interventions to reduce loneliness across the lifespan, including knowledge of different intervention strategies, is limited....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lasgaard, M, Løvschall, C, Qualter, P, Laustsen, LM, Lim, MH, Maindal, HT, Hargaard, AS, Christensen, J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9593938/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckac129.266
_version_ 1784815287598579712
author Lasgaard, M
Løvschall, C
Qualter, P
Laustsen, LM
Lim, MH
Maindal, HT
Hargaard, AS
Christensen, J
author_facet Lasgaard, M
Løvschall, C
Qualter, P
Laustsen, LM
Lim, MH
Maindal, HT
Hargaard, AS
Christensen, J
author_sort Lasgaard, M
collection PubMed
description  : Loneliness is widely acknowledged as a growing public health concern, accelerated by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, our knowledge about the effectiveness of interventions to reduce loneliness across the lifespan, including knowledge of different intervention strategies, is limited. This preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of interventions to reduce loneliness. The systematic review identified 136 studies. The meta-analysis included 128 studies comprising 54 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 6,379), 23 multi-cohort studies (n = 2,882) and 48 single-cohort studies (n = 3,009). A small to moderate statistically significant effect was detected (RCTs; SMD = -0.47, multi-cohort studies; SMD = -0.24, single cohort-studies; SMD = -0.42). Using the GRADE system, confidence in the estimates was assessed as low or very low, implying that the estimates may potentially be higher or lower. No statistically significant differences were found between age groups. Psychological treatment, social support interventions, and social and emotional skills training appeared to be the most effective intervention strategies in reducing loneliness but there is currently no strong reason to prefer one intervention strategy over another. Further analyses demonstrated that the long-term effects (i.e., one to six months after the intervention) were comparable to the short-term effects (i.e., up to four weeks after the intervention). Findings from the current meta-analyses provide overall evidence of the effectiveness of loneliness interventions. Given methodological limitations, including the heterogeneity of the reviewed studies, it remains unclear who the interventions would help the most. Overall, there is a need for rigorous and high-quality development and evaluations of interventions for loneliness. KEY MESSAGES: • The findings of this meta-analytic review suggest that interventions designed to reduce loneliness are effective. • Psychological treatment, social support interventions, and social and emotional skills training are the most promising interventions, albeit the magnitude of the effects is moderate.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9593938
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95939382022-11-04 Are loneliness interventions effective in reducing loneliness? A meta-analytic review of 128 studies: Mathias Lasgaard Lasgaard, M Løvschall, C Qualter, P Laustsen, LM Lim, MH Maindal, HT Hargaard, AS Christensen, J Eur J Public Health Parallel Programme  : Loneliness is widely acknowledged as a growing public health concern, accelerated by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, our knowledge about the effectiveness of interventions to reduce loneliness across the lifespan, including knowledge of different intervention strategies, is limited. This preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of interventions to reduce loneliness. The systematic review identified 136 studies. The meta-analysis included 128 studies comprising 54 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 6,379), 23 multi-cohort studies (n = 2,882) and 48 single-cohort studies (n = 3,009). A small to moderate statistically significant effect was detected (RCTs; SMD = -0.47, multi-cohort studies; SMD = -0.24, single cohort-studies; SMD = -0.42). Using the GRADE system, confidence in the estimates was assessed as low or very low, implying that the estimates may potentially be higher or lower. No statistically significant differences were found between age groups. Psychological treatment, social support interventions, and social and emotional skills training appeared to be the most effective intervention strategies in reducing loneliness but there is currently no strong reason to prefer one intervention strategy over another. Further analyses demonstrated that the long-term effects (i.e., one to six months after the intervention) were comparable to the short-term effects (i.e., up to four weeks after the intervention). Findings from the current meta-analyses provide overall evidence of the effectiveness of loneliness interventions. Given methodological limitations, including the heterogeneity of the reviewed studies, it remains unclear who the interventions would help the most. Overall, there is a need for rigorous and high-quality development and evaluations of interventions for loneliness. KEY MESSAGES: • The findings of this meta-analytic review suggest that interventions designed to reduce loneliness are effective. • Psychological treatment, social support interventions, and social and emotional skills training are the most promising interventions, albeit the magnitude of the effects is moderate. Oxford University Press 2022-10-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9593938/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckac129.266 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Parallel Programme
Lasgaard, M
Løvschall, C
Qualter, P
Laustsen, LM
Lim, MH
Maindal, HT
Hargaard, AS
Christensen, J
Are loneliness interventions effective in reducing loneliness? A meta-analytic review of 128 studies: Mathias Lasgaard
title Are loneliness interventions effective in reducing loneliness? A meta-analytic review of 128 studies: Mathias Lasgaard
title_full Are loneliness interventions effective in reducing loneliness? A meta-analytic review of 128 studies: Mathias Lasgaard
title_fullStr Are loneliness interventions effective in reducing loneliness? A meta-analytic review of 128 studies: Mathias Lasgaard
title_full_unstemmed Are loneliness interventions effective in reducing loneliness? A meta-analytic review of 128 studies: Mathias Lasgaard
title_short Are loneliness interventions effective in reducing loneliness? A meta-analytic review of 128 studies: Mathias Lasgaard
title_sort are loneliness interventions effective in reducing loneliness? a meta-analytic review of 128 studies: mathias lasgaard
topic Parallel Programme
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9593938/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckac129.266
work_keys_str_mv AT lasgaardm arelonelinessinterventionseffectiveinreducinglonelinessametaanalyticreviewof128studiesmathiaslasgaard
AT løvschallc arelonelinessinterventionseffectiveinreducinglonelinessametaanalyticreviewof128studiesmathiaslasgaard
AT qualterp arelonelinessinterventionseffectiveinreducinglonelinessametaanalyticreviewof128studiesmathiaslasgaard
AT laustsenlm arelonelinessinterventionseffectiveinreducinglonelinessametaanalyticreviewof128studiesmathiaslasgaard
AT limmh arelonelinessinterventionseffectiveinreducinglonelinessametaanalyticreviewof128studiesmathiaslasgaard
AT maindalht arelonelinessinterventionseffectiveinreducinglonelinessametaanalyticreviewof128studiesmathiaslasgaard
AT hargaardas arelonelinessinterventionseffectiveinreducinglonelinessametaanalyticreviewof128studiesmathiaslasgaard
AT christensenj arelonelinessinterventionseffectiveinreducinglonelinessametaanalyticreviewof128studiesmathiaslasgaard