A meta-analysis of interventions to reduce loneliness

Abstract

Social and demographic trends are placing an increasing number of adults at risk for loneliness, an established risk factor for physical and mental illness. The growing costs of loneliness have led to a number of loneliness reduction interventions. Qualitative reviews have identified four primary intervention strategies: (a) improving social skills, (b) enhancing social support, (c) increasing opportunities for social contact, and (d) addressing maladaptive social cognition. An integrative meta-analysis of loneliness reduction interventions was conducted to quantify the effects of each strategy and to examine the potential role of moderator variables. Results revealed that single-group pre-post and nonrandomized comparison studies yielded larger mean effect sizes relative to randomized comparison studies. Among studies that used the latter design, the most successful interventions addressed maladaptive social cognition. This is consistent with current theories regarding loneliness and its etiology. Theoretical and methodological issues associated with designing new loneliness reduction interventions are discussed.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1

Identification of eligible studies for meta-analysis

Figure 2. Effect size distribution: Single-group pre-post design (n = 12)

Note: To make the graphs comparable, the y-axis was set at (1.0 to −3.0). The result from one study with a larger effect size (−4.81) is therefore not fully demonstrated in this graph (Sorenson, 2003).

Figure 3. Effect size distribution: Nonrandomized group comparison design (n = 18)

Note: Studies marked with an asterisk were listed in the unpublished English translation of C. M. Fokkema and van Tilburg (2007).

Figure 4

Effect size distribution: Randomized group comparison design (n = 20)

Figure 5. Forest plot showing results of cumulative meta-analysis of randomized group studies

Note: The mean effect size (and 95% CI) is recalculated with the addition of each successively smaller study.