Kaveladze Benjamin T, Gastelum Sara F, Ngo Dong-Anh C, Delacruz Paul, Cohen Katherine A, Käll Anton, Andersson Gerhard, Schleider Jessica L, Schueller Stephen M
Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University.
Department of Psychological Science, University of California, Irvine.
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2025 Jan;93(1):54-63. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000908. Epub 2024 Sep 26.
Loneliness is a global health issue, but current loneliness interventions are not scalable enough to reach many who might benefit from them. Brief online interventions could greatly expand access to evidence-based loneliness interventions.
We conducted a preregistered three-armed trial ( = 908, ages 16-78) to compare three self-guided online interventions: a single-session intervention (SSI) for loneliness, a 3-week, three-session intervention for loneliness, and an active control supportive therapy SSI (https://ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT05687162).
Loneliness decreased between baseline and Week 8 across all conditions ( = -5.80; = -0.55; 95% CI [-0.62, -0.47]; < .01), but did not decrease significantly more in those assigned to either the loneliness SSI (b = -1.27; = -0.12; 95% CI [-0.30, 0.06]; = .20) or the 3-week intervention ( = -0.93; = -0.09; 95% CI [-0.27, 0.09]; = .34) than those assigned to the control SSI. Participants found all three interventions acceptable but rated both loneliness interventions as more acceptable than the control ( < .01). Far more participants completed the 10-min control SSI (86.6%) and 20-min loneliness SSI (69.4%) than the 60-min 3-week intervention (14.9%).
An SSI for loneliness was not significantly less effective than a longer loneliness intervention and had a much higher completion rate. Yet, against our hypotheses, neither loneliness intervention reduced loneliness more than an active control SSI did. Future work should aim to design more effective SSIs for loneliness and identify populations for which SSIs might be most helpful. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
孤独是一个全球性的健康问题，但目前的孤独干预措施扩展性不足，无法惠及众多可能从中受益的人。简短的在线干预可以极大地扩大基于证据的孤独干预措施的可及性。
我们进行了一项预先注册的三臂试验（n = 908，年龄16 - 78岁），以比较三种自我引导的在线干预措施：一种针对孤独的单节干预（SSI）、一种为期3周的三节孤独干预以及一种积极对照支持性治疗SSI（https://ClinicalTrials.gov，标识符：NCT05687162）。
在所有条件下，孤独感在基线至第8周期间均有所下降（b = -5.80；d = -0.55；95%置信区间[-0.62, -0.47]；p <.01），但与分配到对照SSI的参与者相比，分配到孤独SSI（b = -1.27；d = -0.12；95%置信区间[-0.30, 0.06]；p =.20）或3周干预（d = -0.93；d = -0.09；95%置信区间[-0.27, 0.09]；p =.34）的参与者的孤独感下降幅度并无显著更大。参与者认为所有三种干预措施都是可接受的，但将两种孤独干预措施的可接受程度评价为高于对照（p <.01）。完成10分钟对照SSI（86.6%）和20分钟孤独SSI（69.4%）的参与者远远多于完成60分钟3周干预（14.9%）的参与者。
一种针对孤独的SSI的效果并不显著低于较长时间的孤独干预措施且完成率高得多。然而，与我们的假设相反，两种孤独干预措施在减轻孤独感方面均未比积极对照SSI更有效。未来的工作应致力于设计更有效的针对孤独的SSI，并确定哪些人群可能最受益于SSI。（《心理学文摘数据库记录》（c）2025美国心理学会，保留所有权利）
