Addressing Loneliness in Youth: Review underscores effective intervention strategies

/in , , , /by

Osborn, T., Weatherburn, P., & French, R. S. (2021). Interventions to address loneliness and social isolation in young people: A systematic review of the evidence on acceptability and effectiveness. Journal of Adolescence, 93, 53–79.

Introduction

Loneliness and social isolation are increasingly recognized as pressing public health issues for young people, with profound implications for physical and mental health. Defined as the subjective distress arising from a perceived deficit in social connection, loneliness differs from but often co-occurs with social isolation, the objective lack of social relationships. Both are linked to adverse outcomes, including depression, anxiety, and cardiovascular risk, which can persist into adulthood. Osborn and colleagues (2021) evaluate interventions for their effectiveness in reducing loneliness and their acceptability to youth participants.

Methods

A rigorous systematic search across six databases identified 9,358 unique references, from which 28 studies met inclusion criteria. The review focused on empirical studies involving participants aged 10–25, assessing interventions explicitly designed to address loneliness or social isolation. A narrative synthesis approach was employed due to the heterogeneity of study designs, intervention types, and outcome measures.

Results

The review identified 16 unique interventions spanning individual, community, and structural levels. Most interventions targeted specific at-risk populations, including youth with autism spectrum disorders, mental health concerns, or chronic illnesses. Key findings include:

  • Effectiveness: Fourteen interventions demonstrated statistically significant reductions in loneliness or social isolation. These effects were often mediated by improved social skills, enhanced social support, or altered maladaptive cognitions. However, the short follow-up periods and small sample sizes in many studies limit generalizability.
  • Acceptability: Interventions targeting broader, non-clinical youth populations were generally more acceptable than those focusing on specific at-risk groups. High-intensity interventions, while effective, were perceived as less feasible for large-scale implementation due to resource demands and participant attrition.
  • Intervention Design: Successful interventions often employed multi-component approaches, integrating activities like role-playing, peer support, and cognitive-behavioral strategies. Technology-based interventions, such as smartphone apps and online social platforms, showed promise but required careful tailoring to meet participants’ needs.

Discussion

This review highlights significant progress in understanding how loneliness and social isolation can be addressed among youth. However, methodological limitations, including high attrition rates, heterogeneous outcome measures, and limited long-term follow-up, hinder robust conclusions about intervention efficacy.

The authors advocate for a paradigm shift in intervention design, emphasizing the integration of social connectedness into everyday environments, such as schools, universities, and community settings.

Implications for Mentoring Programs

Mentoring programs hold immense potential as vehicles for addressing loneliness and social isolation in youth. By fostering one-on-one connections, mentors can provide emotional support, model positive social behaviors, and encourage participation in community activities. Incorporating evidence-based practices, such as social skills training and cognitive restructuring, can further enhance the impact of mentoring relationships. Technology can play a supportive role, enabling virtual mentorships and extending the reach of interventions to underserved populations.

Read full article here