Digital bridges to social connection: A systematic review and meta-analysis of digital interventions for loneliness and social isolation
Open accessAbstract
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.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4 · Cited by 13,874 · see citing works
Social isolation, loneliness, and all-cause mortality in older men and women
Steptoe, A., Shankar, A., Demakakos, P., & Wardle, J. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1219686110 · Cited by 2,503 · see citing works
Cacioppo, J. T., Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Hawkley, L. C., & Thisted, R. A. (2006) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/0882-7974.21.1.140 · Cited by 2,380 · see citing works
A Meta-Analysis of Interventions to Reduce Loneliness
Masi, C. M., Chen, H.-Y., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2011) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868310377394 · Cited by 1,995 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The uncertainty surrounding social interventions suggests they may not alleviate loneliness unless they also address underlying psychological factors such as mistrust, low self-esteem, fear of rejection, and social anxiety (Masi et al., 2011; Qualter et al., 2013).”
My Chatbot Companion - a Study of Human-Chatbot Relationships
Skjuve, M., Følstad, A., Fostervold, K. I., & Brandtzaeg, P. B. (2021) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102601 · Cited by 797 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Early data suggest users form supportive, non-judgmental relationships with these agents (Skjuve et al., 2021; Xie and Pentina, 2022).”
Balki, E., Hayes, N., & Holland, C. (2022) · JMIR Aging · doi:10.2196/40125 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Purdie, D. R., Federman, M., Chin, A., Winston, D., Bursch, B., Olmstead, R., Bulut, Y., & Irwin, M. R. (2023) · Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings · doi:10.1007/s10880-022-09896-3 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Dworschak, C., Heim, E., Tröster, A., Grunder, C., & Maercker, A. (2024) · Journal of Affective Disorders Reports · doi:10.1016/j.jadr.2023.100692 · Cited by 16 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…(Brog et al., 2022; Boucher et al., 2024; Gilbody et al., 2024; Maj et al., 2024; DuPont et al., 2023; Rubin et al., 2024; Seewer et al., 2024; Dworschak et al., 2024; Wagner et al., 2024; Hirshberg et al., 2025; Iyer et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2023; Mueller and Cougle, 2023) examined…”
Matthaeus, H., Godara, M., Silveira, S., Hecht, M., Voelkle, M., & Singer, T. (2024) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph21050570 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
DuPont, C. M., Pressman, S. D., Reed, R. G., Manuck, S. B., Marsland, A. L., & Gianaros, P. J. (2023) · Affective Science · doi:10.1007/s42761-022-00148-z · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Hansen, T., Johansen, R., Kirkøen, B., Stene-Larsen, K., Straiton, M., Tornes, R. A., & Reneflot, A.
- Affiliations
- Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Hansen, Thomas
- ORCID
- Venue
- Internet Interventions
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2025-09
- Volume
- 41
- Pages
- 100856
- ISSN
- 2214-7829 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC12281013
- OpenAlex
- W4412105425
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 5
- FWCI
- 3.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Internet Interventions (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Research Council of Norway (288083)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
- Keywords
- loneliness, social isolation, digital interventions, social connectedness, psychological intervention, activity-based intervention, pet robots, conversational robots, social chatbots, group intervention
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review