18 sources: 10 meta-analyses, 1 narrative review, 7 systematic reviews
Social · Practice
Join a Group, Club, or Class
Regular participation in a shared-interest group: one way to carry out what the loneliness-intervention reviews studied. Dickens 2011 reports that group-format and participatory programs more often reported improved outcomes, and Shekelle 2024 that group-based treatment was associated with lower loneliness in older adults.
Beta content: this dimension's review set is version 0.9-beta and upgrades in place after the Round-2 internal reviews.
10 of 18 sources behind this entry were read from the abstract only; they are marked in the sources list.
weekly
Beginner-friendlyIn-person or online
Before you start
Social anxiety may make joining hard at first, start small
When to seek a professional
- Persistent loneliness or isolation accompanied by low mood, hopelessness, loss of interest, or withdrawal lasting 2+ weeks: encourage contact with a primary care provider or mental health professional
- Thoughts of self-harm or that life is not worth living: direct to crisis line / emergency services immediately
- Social anxiety severe enough to prevent all group participation despite wanting connection: consider professional support
How to do it
1 group with regular (e.g., weekly) participation
varies by groupFor most adultsOlder adultsYoung adultsNew to the area
What the evidence says
What the sources say
This practice is one way to carry out what the loneliness-intervention reviews on the concept entry (soc.loneliness-interventions-modest-contested) studied. Dickens 2011 (systematic review) reports that 79% of group-based and 55% of one-to-one interventions reported improved outcomes, and that effective interventions were commonly theory-based and offered social activity or support in a group format; Shekelle 2024 (meta-analysis) reports group-based treatment associated with lower loneliness in community-living older adults (SMD −0.27); Morrish 2023 reports 14 of 22 studies effective, with group sessions preferred over individual formats. Grillich 2023 reports an overall loneliness effect that was not statistically significant, with low confidence in the evidence. The full account, source by source, is on the concept entry this practice links to (soc.loneliness-interventions-modest-contested).
Common misconceptions
- Myth: you should already know people to join. Reality: groups exist precisely to meet new people.
- (myth: any group works equally.) CORRECTION: group-based, participatory and identity-building formats show the clearest benefit.
What we won't claim
- Do not present this practice as a treatment or cure for clinical depression, anxiety disorders, or diagnosable loneliness-related conditions
- Do not claim it replaces professional mental-health care
- Do not promise it will prevent disease or extend lifespan for any individual
18 sources: 10 meta-analyses, 1 narrative review, 7 systematic reviews
- Agreement
- Direction recorded for 0 of 18 sources; not yet recorded for the rest.
- The claim's outcome
- Outcome not yet recorded
- Certainty
- A source states a certainty rating for 1 outcome.
- How the sources were read
- Some sources are based on abstracts, not full texts.
What each source measured and concluded (18)
meta-analysis · 2023
Li et al. (2023) — Psychological interventions for loneliness and social isolation among older adults during medical pandemics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- What it measured
- Loneliness and social isolation
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and meta-analysis
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 12 intervention articles
meta-analysis · 2025
Hansen et al. (2025) — Digital bridges to social connection: A systematic review and meta-analysis of digital interventions for loneliness and social isolation
- What it measured
- Loneliness and social isolation
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=40 RCTs involving 6062 participants
systematic review · 2023
Grillich et al. (2023) — The effectiveness of interventions to prevent loneliness and social isolation in the community-dwelling and old population: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis
- What it measured
- Loneliness and social support/social isolation
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=5 systematic reviews containing 30 eligible studies
meta-analysis · 2023
Yu et al. (2023) — Effects of non-pharmacological interventions on loneliness among community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression.
- What it measured
- Loneliness
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=60 studies with 13,295 participants
meta-analysis · 2021
Zagic et al. (2021) — Interventions to improve social connections: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- What it measured
- Objective social contact and perceived quality of social connections
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials (RCTs)
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=58 studies
meta-analysis · 2025
Coppola et al. (2025) — Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Mechanistic Loneliness Interventions for Older Adults
- What it measured
- Loneliness
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 35 RCTs from 31 studies (total N=5291 participants)
- Heterogeneity, as stated
- Interventions significantly improved loneliness (pooled SMD -1.11, 95% CI -2.19 to -0.03, p=0.043); distress tolerance interventions, group interventions, longer/more frequent sessions, and cognitive or acceptance-of-aging interventions had larger effect sizes; heterogeneity was high (I2=99.57%).
meta-analysis · 2025
Yang et al. (2025) — Effects of reminiscence therapy for loneliness in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- What it measured
- Loneliness
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and meta-analysis
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 22 studies
systematic review · 2016
Coll-Planas et al. (2016) — Social capital interventions targeting older people and their impact on health: a systematic review
- What it measured
- Health outcomes and use of health-related resources (social capital interventions)
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review (of randomized controlled trials, logic-model based)
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 36 trials reported in 73 papers (from 17,341 abstracts)
systematic review · 2020
Jarvis et al. (2020) — The effectiveness of interventions addressing loneliness in older persons: An umbrella review
- What it measured
- Loneliness (and social isolation)
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=16 reviews; 19 unique RCT primary studies extracted (effect sizes for 14 RCTs)
systematic review · 2005
Sander (2005) — Preventing social isolation and loneliness among older people: a systematic review of health promotion interventions.
- What it measured
- Social isolation and loneliness (well-being and quality of life)
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review of health promotion interventions
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=11 studies
meta-analysis · 2021
Teoh et al. (2021) — Can Mindfulness Help to Alleviate Loneliness? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- What it measured
- Loneliness.
- How it measured it
- UCLA loneliness scale (validated).
- Its conclusion, in its own words
- “Mindfulness intervention with an average length of 8-week duration significantly improved the population's loneliness level with no mental health issue.”
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of 8 RCTs
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=815 participants across 8 studies
systematic review · 2023
Morrish et al. (2023) — What works in interventions targeting loneliness: a systematic review of intervention characteristics
- What it measured
- Loneliness.
- How it measured it
- UCLA loneliness scale (validated).
- Its conclusion, in its own words
- “Studies suggest there is no ‘quick fix’ to loneliness, but that learnt practices, behaviours, and community connection should be built into one’s lifestyle to achieve sustained intervention effectiveness.”
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=not reported participants across 22 studies
meta-analysis · 2010
Masi et al. (2010) — A Meta-Analysis of Interventions to Reduce Loneliness
- What it measured
- Reduction in loneliness.
- How it measured it
- UCLA Loneliness Scale (validated).
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What the review says it includes
- Meta-analysis of 50 studies
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=not reported participants across 50 studies
systematic review · 2011
Dickens et al. (2011) — Interventions targeting social isolation in older people: a systematic review
- What it measured
- Social isolation and loneliness.
- How it measured it
- Validated outcome measures.
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review of 32 studies (16 RCTs and 16 quasi-experimental studies)
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=4061 participants across 32 studies
- Heterogeneity, as stated
- Heterogeneity of interventions and participants
meta-analysis · 2024
Shekelle et al. (2024) — Interventions to Reduce Loneliness in Community-Living Older Adults: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
- What it measured
- Reduction of loneliness.
- How it measured it
- UCLA scale (validated), deJong Gierveld scale (validated).
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 60 studies (36 RCTs and 24 observational studies)
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=not reported participants across 60 studies
- Heterogeneity, as stated
- Limitations: The authors acknowledged limitations such as not identifying all relevant evidence, residual heterogeneity among studies, and the potential for unpublished studies.
meta-analysis · 2025
Faronbi et al. (2025) — Effects of social support interventions on depressive symptoms and quality of life among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- What it measured
- Depression.
- How it measured it
- Self-reported instrument.
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What the review says it includes
- Meta-analysis of 16 RCTs (14 parallel and 2 cluster)
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=2,325 participants across 16 studies
systematic review · 2024
Gasull-Molinera et al. (2024) — The impact of loneliness on mental and physical health outcomes: An umbrella review.
- What it measured
- Association of loneliness with adverse mental and physical health outcomes
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What the review says it includes
- Umbrella review
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 13 systematic reviews (four with meta-analysis)
narrative review · 2009
Ertel et al. (2009) — Social networks and health: A life course perspective integrating observational and experimental evidence
- What it measured
- Health outcomes (disease onset, functioning, mortality) related to social networks
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
Certainty ratings the sources state (1)
Teoh et al. (2021), for its own outcome
- Rating, as the source states it
- low
- Framework
- not named by the source
- Applies to
- Limitations: The overall quality of evidence was low, lack of double-blinding procedures, inconsistency in loneliness measurement scales.
- Stated by
- Teoh et al. (2021)
Key sources (18)
Every source below is shown with its study design and links to the original study. This is the audit trail.
meta-analysisPsychological interventions for loneliness and social isolation among older adults during medical pandemics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
meta-analysisDigital bridges to social connection: A systematic review and meta-analysis of digital interventions for loneliness and social isolation
systematic reviewThe effectiveness of interventions to prevent loneliness and social isolation in the community-dwelling and old population: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis
meta-analysisEffects of non-pharmacological interventions on loneliness among community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression.
meta-analysisInterventions to improve social connections: a systematic review and meta-analysis
meta-analysisSystematic Review and Meta-analysis of Mechanistic Loneliness Interventions for Older Adults
meta-analysisEffects of reminiscence therapy for loneliness in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
systematic reviewSocial capital interventions targeting older people and their impact on health: a systematic review
systematic reviewThe effectiveness of interventions addressing loneliness in older persons: An umbrella review
systematic reviewPreventing social isolation and loneliness among older people: a systematic review of health promotion interventions.
meta-analysisCan Mindfulness Help to Alleviate Loneliness? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
systematic reviewWhat works in interventions targeting loneliness: a systematic review of intervention characteristics
meta-analysisA Meta-Analysis of Interventions to Reduce Loneliness
systematic reviewInterventions targeting social isolation in older people: a systematic review
meta-analysisInterventions to Reduce Loneliness in Community-Living Older Adults: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
meta-analysisEffects of social support interventions on depressive symptoms and quality of life among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
systematic reviewThe impact of loneliness on mental and physical health outcomes: An umbrella review.
narrative reviewSocial networks and health: A life course perspective integrating observational and experimental evidence
“Abstract only” means the review read that paper’s abstract, not its full text; “screened only” means it was included at re-screening and not extracted. Both stay in the trail with their DOI, because how a source was read is part of the audit.
Explore all 367 studies in Social →
The full evidence base this focus area draws on, every study with its design and DOI.What it is for
Feel less lonelyFeel more connected to peopleFeel part of a community