Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39020331›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2024

Tackling social disconnection: an umbrella review of RCT-based interventions targeting social isolation and loneliness.

Thomas Hansen, Ragnhild Bang Nes, Kamila Hynek, Thomas Sevenius Nilsen, Anne Reneflot, Kim Stene-Larsen, Ragnhild Agathe Tornes, Julia Bidonde

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Mapping the factors of loneliness in older adults: the role of employment and work activity - a scoping review.International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Thomas HansenDepartment of Mental Health and Suicide, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway. thomas.hansen@fhi.no.
Ragnhild Bang NesDepartment of Mental Health and Suicide, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Kamila HynekDepartment of Mental Health and Suicide, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Thomas Sevenius NilsenDepartment of Mental Health and Suicide, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Anne ReneflotDepartment of Mental Health and Suicide, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Kim Stene-LarsenDepartment of Mental Health and Suicide, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Ragnhild Agathe TornesDepartment of Mental Health and Suicide, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Julia BidondeSchool of Rehabilitation Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial isolation and loneliness are urgent public health concerns associated with negative physical and mental health outcomes. Understanding effective remedies is crucial in addressing these problems. This umbrella review aimed to synthesize and critically appraise scientific evidence on the effectiveness of social isolation and loneliness interventions overall and across subgroups. We focused on systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

methodsWe searched seven databases (June 2022 and updated June 2023) and supplemented the search with grey literature and reference screening to identify SRs published since 2017. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment using the AMSTAR2 tool were conducted independently by author pairs, with disagreements resolved through discussion.

resultsWe included 29 SRs, 16 with meta-analysis and 13 with narrative synthesis. All SRs focused on loneliness, with 12 additionally examining social isolation. Four SRs focused on young people, 11 on all ages, and 14 on older adults. The most frequently examined intervention types were social (social contact, social support), psychological (therapy, psychoeducation, social skills training), and digital (e.g., computer use and online support). Meta-analyses indicated small-to-moderate beneficial effects, while narrative synthesis demonstrated mixed or no effect. Social interventions for social isolation and psychological interventions for loneliness were the most promising. However, caution is warranted due to the effects' small magnitude, significant heterogeneity, and the variable quality of SRs. Digital and other interventions showed mixed or no effect; however, caution is advised in interpreting these results due to the highly diverse nature of the interventions studied.

conclusionsThis overview of SRs shows small to moderate effectiveness of social interventions in reducing social isolation and psychological ones in tackling loneliness. Further rigorously conducted RCTs and SRs are needed to guide policy decisions regarding the implementation of efficacious and scalable interventions. Evaluation should focus on both preventive structural interventions and tailored mitigating strategies that address specific types and causes of loneliness.

Indexed as

LonelinessRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSocial IsolationHumansSocial Support

Identifiers

PMID39020331
PMCPMC11256365

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.