Interventions for reducing loneliness: an umbrella review of intervention studies

Veronese, Nicola and Galvano, Daianna and D’Antiga, Francesca and Vecchiato, Chiara and Furegon, Eva and Allocco, Raffaella and Smith, Lee and Gelmini, Giovanni and Gareri, Pietro and Solmi, Marco and Yang, Lin and Trabucchi, Marco and Leo, Diego and Demurtas, Jacopo (2020) Interventions for reducing loneliness: an umbrella review of intervention studies. Health & Social Care in the Community. ISSN 1365-2524

[img] Text
Accepted Version
Restricted to Repository staff only until 5 December 2021.
Available under the following license: Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (103kB) | Request a copy
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13248

Abstract

Loneliness is a common phenomenon associated with several negative health outcomes. Current knowledge regarding interventions for reducing loneliness in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is conflicting. The aim of the present work is to provide an overview of interventions to reduce loneliness, using an umbrella review of previously published systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. We searched major databases from database inception to 31 March 2020 for RCTs comparing active versus non‐active interventions for reducing loneliness. For each intervention, random‐effects summary effect size and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. For significant outcomes (p‐value < 0.05), the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) tool was used, grading the evidence from very low to high. From 211 studies initially evaluated, seven meta‐analyses for seven different types of interventions were included (median number of RCTs: 8; median number of participants: 600). Three interventions were statistically significant for reducing loneliness, that is, meditation/mindfulness, social cognitive training and social support. When applying GRADE criteria, meditation/mindfulness (mean difference, MD = −6.03; 95% CI: −9.33 to −2.73; very low strength of the evidence), social cognitive training (8 RCTs; SMD = −0.49; 95% CI: −0.84 to −0.13; very low strength of the evidence) and social support (9 RCTs; SMD = −0.13; 95% CI: −0.25 to −0.01; low strength of the evidence) significantly decreased the perception of loneliness. In conclusion, three intervention types may be utilised for reducing loneliness, but they are supported by a low/very low certainty of evidence indicating the need for future large‐scale RCTs to further investigate the efficacy of interventions for reducing loneliness.

Item Type: Journal Article
Keywords: loneliness, intervention, meta-analysis, randomized controlled trial, social, umbrella review
Faculty: Faculty of Science & Engineering
SWORD Depositor: Symplectic User
Depositing User: Symplectic User
Date Deposited: 13 Nov 2020 11:48
Last Modified: 09 Sep 2021 18:52
URI: https://arro.anglia.ac.uk/id/eprint/706044

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item