JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Loneliness is a widespread public health concern linked to increased risks of health problems. As populations age, the demand for effective interventions to mitigate loneliness continues to grow.

Objective:

This meta-analysis examines the effectiveness of technology-based interventions in reducing loneliness.

Methods:

The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024505117). A systematic literature search was conducted in Web of Science, PsycInfo, PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Embase, and the Cochrane Library in August 2024. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effectiveness of technology-based interventions compared to any control group in reducing loneliness across all age groups. Non-randomized studies, qualitative research, and studies lacking sufficient statistical data for effect size calculation were excluded. After screening 1,089 records, 7 studies met the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted by three independent reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by a fourth reviewer. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. A random-effects model was used to synthesize effect estimates, with standardized mean differences (SMD) as the primary effect size metric. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q-statistic and I² index, and a prediction interval was calculated to estimate the expected range of true effects.

Results:

We found a small and statistically non-significant overall effect of technology-based interventions on loneliness (pooled SMD = –0.21, 95% CI [–0.59, 0.17]). Substantial between-study variability was present (I² = 57%), and the prediction interval (–0.98 to 0.56) indicated that true effects in future studies may range from small reductions to small increases in loneliness. Differences between intervention types could not be examined due to the limited number of eligible studies. Egger’s test showed significant funnel-plot asymmetry (t = –5.47, df = 5, p = .0028). However, since the trim-and-fill method identified no missing studies, the asymmetry is unlikely to be fully explained by publication bias.

Conclusions:

Our findings do not provide evidence for a reliable reduction in loneliness following technology-based interventions. Moderate heterogeneity indicates that effects vary across studies, and the limited number of eligible trials prevented analysis of potential moderators. Future research should employ rigorous designs, ensure complete data reporting, and investigate how intervention characteristics and population factors influence outcomes.