Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, UK.
Division of Psychology, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden.
Clin Psychol Rev. 2021 Aug;88:102066. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102066. Epub 2021 Jul 18.
Chronic loneliness is associated with a range of mental health difficulties. Previous theory and research indicate that psychological interventions show promise for reducing loneliness, however, there have been no systematic reviews or meta-analyses to ascertain the efficacy of these interventions across the lifespan. The aim of this study was to synthesise, meta-analyse and explore the heterogeneity in RCTs of psychological interventions for loneliness in order to establish their efficacy. Five databases (Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, Web of Science and CINAHL) were systematically searched in order to identify relevant studies. Included studies were required to be peer-reviewed RCTs examining psychological interventions for loneliness. Two independent coders examined the abstracts of the 3973 studies and 103 full texts, finding 31 studies that met inclusion criteria, 28 of which contained sufficient statistical information to be included in the meta-analysis. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The 31 studies (N = 3959) that were included in the systematic review were conducted with participants from a diverse range of cultures, age groups and populations. The interventions were of mixed quality and were mostly face to face, group-based and delivered weekly. The most common type of intervention was Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). 28 studies (N = 3039) were included in a meta-analysis which found that psychological interventions significantly reduced loneliness compared to control groups, yielding a small to medium effect size (g = 0.43). Subgroup analysis and meta-regressions were conducted in order to explore heterogeneity and found that type of psychological intervention was approaching significance as a moderator of the effectiveness of psychological interventions for loneliness. In conclusion, psychological interventions for loneliness across the lifespan are effective. This finding should inform policy makers, researchers and clinicians going forward, especially in the context of increased loneliness due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There was considerable heterogeneity in the effectiveness of the interventions, suggesting that future research should also explore what works for whom and consider personalising psychological treatment.
慢性孤独与一系列心理健康问题有关。先前的理论和研究表明,心理干预对减少孤独感有一定的效果,但是,还没有系统的综述或荟萃分析来确定这些干预措施在整个生命周期内的效果。本研究的目的是综合、荟萃分析和探讨心理干预孤独的随机对照试验中的异质性,以确定其疗效。为了确定相关研究,系统地检索了五个数据库(Ovid Embase、Ovid Medline、PsycINFO、Web of Science 和 CINAHL)。纳入的研究必须是针对孤独的心理干预的同行评审随机对照试验。两名独立的编码员检查了 3973 项研究和 103 篇全文的摘要,发现有 31 项研究符合纳入标准,其中 28 项研究包含足够的统计信息纳入荟萃分析。纳入研究的质量使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具进行评估。在系统综述中纳入的 31 项研究(N=3959)是针对来自不同文化、年龄组和人群的参与者进行的。干预措施质量参差不齐,主要是面对面、小组式的,每周进行一次。最常见的干预类型是认知行为疗法(CBT)。对 28 项研究(N=3039)进行荟萃分析发现,与对照组相比,心理干预显著降低了孤独感,产生了小到中等的效果量(g=0.43)。进行了亚组分析和荟萃回归,以探讨异质性,发现心理干预的类型接近作为孤独心理干预有效性的调节因素。总之,在整个生命周期内针对孤独的心理干预是有效的。这一发现应该为政策制定者、研究人员和临床医生提供信息,特别是在 COVID-19 大流行导致孤独感增加的情况下。干预措施的效果存在很大的异质性,这表明未来的研究还应该探索什么对谁有效,并考虑个性化心理治疗。