The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Ulf Gerdtham. Photo.

Ulf Gerdtham

Professor

Ulf Gerdtham. Photo.

Cost-effectiveness of interventions addressing loneliness among adults - A Systematic Literature Review

Author

  • Annette Bertolino
  • Johan Jarl
  • Ulf Gerdtham
  • Sanjib Saha

Summary, in English

OBJECTIVES: Loneliness and social isolation are major public health concerns that contribute to numerous health consequences. While many interventions effectively reduce loneliness and social isolation, their cost-effectiveness remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate and consolidate evidence on the cost-effectiveness of interventions addressing loneliness or social isolation.

METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of studies published until March 2024. A narrative synthesis of the selected studies was conducted to assess whether interventions for adults >18 were cost-effective, and we identified and discussed probable factors affecting cost-effectiveness. We assessed the reporting quality of the selected studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS-2).

RESULTS: We included 16 studies covering 18 distinct interventions. Group-based interventions addressing loneliness and social isolation appeared generally more likely to be cost-effective compared to individual-based interventions, as were those explicitly targeting lonely individuals and with longer time horizons. Most studies included a societal perspective (eight studies, ten interventions) and used quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (eleven interventions). Eight interventions were reported to be cost-effective. Overall, the reporting quality was judged satisfactory, but none of the studies incorporated equity aspects, i.e., distributional cost-effectiveness analysis.

CONCLUSION: Group-based interventions appear generally cost-effective in reducing loneliness despite heterogeneities among studies. However, more research is required with homogenous methodology, for example, societal perspective and longer time horizon before routine implementation.

Department/s

  • Health Economics
  • LU Profile Area: Proactive Ageing
  • EpiHealth: Epidemiology for Health

Publishing year

2025-07-19

Language

English

Publication/Series

Value in Health

Document type

Journal article review

Publisher

Elsevier

Topic

  • Public Health, Global Health and Social Medicine
  • Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy

Status

Epub

Research group

  • Health Economics

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISSN: 1098-3015