Hansen Thomas, Johansen Rune, Kirkøen Benedicte, Stene-Larsen Kim, Straiton Melanie, Tornes Ragnhild A, Reneflot Anne
Department of Mental Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Promenta Research Center, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Internet Interv. 2025 Jul 8;41:100856. doi: 10.1016/j.invent.2025.100856. eCollection 2025 Sep.
As loneliness and social isolation emerge as pressing public health concerns, identifying effective interventions is essential. Digital solutions offer flexible, scalable, and cost-effective approaches, yet their effectiveness remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis assess the impact of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on digital interventions to reduce loneliness and social isolation. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we searched seven databases and grey literature (2022-) and applied random-effects models to pool effect sizes by intervention type. A total of 40 RCTs involving 6062 participants were included, with one-third focusing on younger individuals. Loneliness was assessed in 36 studies, while eight examined social isolation. Interventions were classified as psychological (k = 25), social (k = 4), activity-based (k = 4), robot-based (k = 4), and social media reduction (k = 5). Psychological interventions-especially those with group or social components-along with group-based activities and robotic pets, were effective in reducing loneliness. In contrast, social contact interventions, self-guided individual activities, and conversational robots showed limited impact. Social media reduction interventions suggested potential benefits, though results were not statistically significant. The evidence base exhibited moderate to high risk of bias, heterogeneity, and limited long-term follow-up. We provide specific recommendations for future interventions and research, including leveraging digital technologies for enhanced personalization, using digital tools for signposting non-digital interventions, systematically comparing digital and non-digital versions of the same intervention, and, most critically, examining the impact of increasingly popular AI-driven and humanlike social chatbots.
随着孤独和社会隔离成为紧迫的公共卫生问题,确定有效的干预措施至关重要。数字解决方案提供了灵活、可扩展且具有成本效益的方法,但其有效性仍不确定。本系统评价和荟萃分析评估了随机对照试验(RCT)对减少孤独和社会隔离的数字干预措施的影响。遵循PRISMA 2020指南,我们检索了七个数据库和灰色文献(2022年起),并应用随机效应模型按干预类型汇总效应量。共纳入40项RCT,涉及6062名参与者,其中三分之一关注年轻人。36项研究评估了孤独感,8项研究考察了社会隔离。干预措施分为心理干预(k = 25)、社交干预(k = 4)、基于活动的干预(k = 4)、基于机器人的干预(k = 4)和减少社交媒体使用的干预(k = 5)。心理干预——尤其是那些具有团体或社交成分的干预——以及基于团体的活动和机器人宠物,在减少孤独感方面有效。相比之下,社交接触干预、自我指导的个人活动和对话机器人的影响有限。减少社交媒体使用的干预措施显示出潜在益处,尽管结果在统计学上不显著。证据基础显示出中度至高风险的偏倚、异质性和有限的长期随访。我们为未来的干预措施和研究提供了具体建议,包括利用数字技术增强个性化,使用数字工具为非数字干预提供指引,系统比较同一干预措施的数字和非数字版本,以及最关键的是,研究日益流行的人工智能驱动的类人社交聊天机器人的影响。