Young People’s Views on Interventions for Loneliness

A significant number of young individuals face challenges related to feelings of loneliness. This phenomenon is often described as a subjective and unwelcome sensation stemming from dissatisfaction with both the quantity and quality of social interactions (Paplau & Perlman, 1982). Research has shown that the youth demographic is particularly vulnerable to experiencing elevated levels of loneliness (Qualter et al, 2015; Barreto et al, 2021).

The repercussions of loneliness extend beyond emotional discomfort; it is closely linked with adverse mental and physical health outcomes, disrupted sleep patterns, and diminished overall wellbeing (Matthews et al, 2019; Rico-Uribe et al, 2018). Given the increasing prevalence of this issue, it has garnered attention as a pressing public health concern that needs to be effectively addressed to support young people globally.

Addressing loneliness among young people necessitates the creation of evidence-based interventions tailored to their unique needs. Currently, three primary categories of loneliness intervention strategies have been identified:

• Social interventions designed to enhance opportunities for social connection and interaction;
• Interpersonal interventions aimed at strengthening social and emotional competencies; and
• Intrapersonal interventions that focus on individual psychological processes.

Systematic reviews have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy and future trajectories of existing interventions targeting loneliness among youth (Eccles & Qualter, 2020; Pearce et al, 2021). The findings emphasize that for interventions to be successful, they must directly address loneliness as the primary issue rather than as a secondary result. Additionally, it is crucial that these interventions are tailored specifically for the intended age group and undergo thorough testing to assess whether young people perceive them as acceptable and feasible. The practicality of an intervention becomes moot if it fails to engage its target audience (acceptability) or if it cannot be realistically implemented in a real-world context (feasibility).

To further this objective, Eager and colleagues (2024) undertook a qualitative study involving young individuals aged 16-24 who identified themselves as experiencing loneliness. The study aimed to gather insights into their perspectives regarding the acceptability and feasibility of various loneliness interventions, as well as to identify potential areas for improvement.

Exploring Methodology for Effective Loneliness Interventions

In this investigation, the authors conducted a total of 23 individual semi-structured interviews via online platforms with young people aged 16-24 who identified as having experienced feelings of loneliness, whether in the past or currently, while residing in the UK at the time of their interviews. To ensure a diverse representation, purposive sampling was employed for 8 of the interviews, targeting participants with varying demographic characteristics.

The interviews followed a structured topic guide, featuring questions and prompts focused on the perceived acceptability and feasibility of different types of interventions, along with broader inquiries regarding the topic of loneliness. To provide a solid foundation for discussion, all participants received an introductory presentation outlining the three distinct types of loneliness interventions.

The analysis of interview transcripts utilized a reflexive thematic analysis approach (Braun and Clarke, 2006), enabling a comprehensive examination of participant feedback.

Identifying Key Findings on Youth Loneliness Interventions

The 23 participants in the interviews predominantly identified as heterosexual, resided in urban areas, and had sought support from mental health services. This group exhibited a wide array of gender identities and ethnic backgrounds. From these interviews, six significant themes emerged, reflecting participants’ views on the acceptability and feasibility of interventions designed to alleviate loneliness among young people:

Tailoring Interventions to Address Different Stages of Loneliness

Many participants emphasized the importance of customizing intervention types to align with young people’s varying ages and stages of loneliness. They suggested that interpersonal strategies might be particularly effective for young individuals aged 12 to 16, as this period is critical for developing essential social and emotional skills.

Strategies for Engaging Young People in Loneliness Interventions

Participants highlighted various factors that could either encourage or hinder young people’s engagement in loneliness interventions. Positive engagement facilitators included the incorporation of enjoyable activities, the use of straightforward language, and providing positive alternatives to the term loneliness. Conversely, they noted that stigma surrounding perceptions of loneliness and a lack of awareness regarding their feelings could serve as significant barriers preventing young people from participating in interventions aimed at addressing loneliness.

Maximizing Intervention Settings and Delivery Methods

It was widely recognized that interventions targeting loneliness would be more successful when conducted in specific environments, particularly within group settings. Additionally, flexibility in the structure of sessions, including brief yet frequent meetings, was identified as a crucial factor for enhancing effectiveness.

Diverse Perspectives on the Role of Technology in Interventions

Interviewees expressed varying opinions regarding the integration of technology into loneliness interventions. They acknowledged the significant role technology plays for their age group, with some believing that virtual interventions or applications could enhance accessibility and create a more inviting atmosphere. However, there were also apprehensions regarding the detrimental effects of social media on loneliness among 16–24-year-olds, with concerns that online interventions might compromise the quality of interpersonal interactions and the skills developed through face-to-face engagement.

Clarifying the Scope of Loneliness Interventions

Participants highlighted the necessity of clearly defining the scope of any given intervention. They proposed that broad-based interventions designed to assist as many young people as possible could be effective for those who feel a lack of social connections, especially during life transitions. Conversely, a more targeted approach was deemed essential for individuals grappling with severe or chronic feelings of loneliness.

Advocating for a Comprehensive Approach to Loneliness Interventions

Most participants advocated for interventions to be personalized to meet individual needs, acknowledging that young people may respond differently based on their communication preferences. Opinions varied on how best to achieve this personalization. Some suggested combining elements from the three intervention types to create a “comprehensive intervention that addresses loneliness from multiple perspectives”, while others cautioned that such complexity could deter participation. An intriguing proposal was to present intervention strategies in a hierarchical manner, implementing each type sequentially.

Insights for Future Youth Loneliness Interventions

This research underscores the critical need for continued advancement in interventions aimed at mitigating youth loneliness, as existing options demonstrate limited acceptability and feasibility within this demographic. It is essential that these interventions are adaptable and personalized, encompassing variations in context, setting, duration, and language to adequately cater to the diverse needs of young individuals.

Eager et al (2024) concluded that:

designers of interventions must consider the appropriate stages and scopes of interventions, the mode of delivery, the role of technology, and the importance of tailoring to meet diverse needs.

The findings further highlight the significance of co-producing and researching in collaboration with young individuals who have experienced loneliness firsthand.

Evaluating Strengths and Limitations of the Study

The methodology employed in this study presents several strengths. The participant sample was notably diverse, encompassing young people from various marginalized identities. This diversity is critical, particularly given evidence indicating that marginalized groups often experience heightened levels of loneliness (Barreto, Qualter & Doyle, 2023). The study also effectively addressed limitations found in prior research, making its results more relevant and applicable to the population studied. Notably, participants provided direct, personal experiences of loneliness rather than just representing high-risk groups.

Moreover, the inclusion of public and patient involvement (PPI) throughout the design of study materials ensured that participants could comprehend and engage with the resources effectively, starting with a common understanding of existing interventions. However, it would have been beneficial for the authors to integrate further PPI throughout the research process. Engaging young individuals at various stages—such as in design, data collection, and analysis—could have enhanced the study, particularly since thematic analysis is well-suited for incorporating lived experiences. The PPI efforts could also have been more thoroughly documented, detailing how feedback from young people influenced study materials.

Another limitation identified was the potential for voluntary participation bias, as highlighted by the authors. Those who volunteered were likely more aware of their loneliness and comfortable discussing it, possibly excluding severely lonely young people or those uncomfortable with sharing their experiences. Additionally, the sample included only one participant from a rural area and did not assess participants’ socio-economic status, despite evidence that these groups are disproportionately affected by loneliness.

Lastly, it’s important to note that this study was conducted during the later stages of the COVID-19 pandemic—a unique period when young people likely encountered loneliness in unprecedented ways. Thus, some findings may not generalize to future generations of young people who did not experience adolescence during the pandemic. Conversely, this context may also serve as a strength, as the reliance on technology during social distancing could have provided young individuals with informed insights into the role of technology in loneliness interventions.

Practical Implications for Addressing Youth Loneliness

The insights gathered from this study offer valuable perspectives for clinicians, researchers, and policymakers regarding young people’s perceptions of the acceptability and feasibility of various loneliness interventions.

For researchers, a critical takeaway is the necessity to explore which characteristics of interventions align best with different stages of development and types of loneliness. Additionally, examining the impact of societal and structural factors—such as socio-economic status and urban living conditions—will be vital for ensuring that a broader range of young individuals is represented in the literature, thus acquiring a more nuanced comprehension of the diverse experiences of loneliness. Importantly, future research should prioritize collaboration with young people who have lived experiences of loneliness, engaging them throughout the research process.

As someone who has experienced feelings of loneliness, I recognize the critical importance of customizing interventions to meet individual needs. This principle resonates throughout all the identified themes, underscoring that a universal approach to addressing loneliness is unlikely to yield effective outcomes. Clinicians should be mindful of this, working collaboratively with young individuals to adapt treatments to their specific requirements and exploring various approaches if initial attempts are unsuccessful.

Finally, policymakers should leverage these findings as motivation to invest in research focused on developing, implementing, and evaluating innovative interventions for youth loneliness. They should also acknowledge the stigma surrounding loneliness, as discussed by participants, which could be addressed through public health campaigns and initiatives in schools.

Disclosure of Research Interests

I am currently serving as a research assistant on the UNITE project, which aims to investigate the pathways leading to loneliness among socio-economically marginalized young people.

Essential Resources and References

Primary Research Article

Eager, S., Johnson, S., Pitman, A., Uribe, M., Qualter, P., & Pearce, E. (2024). Young people’s perspectives on the acceptability and feasibility of loneliness interventions tailored to their age group. BMC Psychiatry, 24(1), 308.

Additional References

Barreto, M., Qualter, P., Doyle, D. (2023). Loneliness Inequalities Evidence Review. Wales Centre for Public Policy. WCPP-REPORT-Loneliness-Inequalities-Evidence-Review.pdf

Barreto, M., Victor, C., Hammond, C., Eccles, A., Richins, M. T., & Qualter, P. (2021). Loneliness Across the Globe: Age, Gender, and Cultural Variations in Loneliness. Personality and Individual Differences, 169, 110066.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Eccles, A. M., & Qualter, P. (2021). Mitigating Loneliness in Young Populations – A Meta-Analytical Review of Interventions. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 26(1), 17-33.

Pearce, E., Myles-Hooton, P., Johnson, S., Hards, E., Olsen, S., Clisu, D., Pais, S. M. A., Chesters, H. A., Shah, S., Jerwood, G., Politis, M., Melwani, J., Andersson, G., & Shafran, R. (2021). Loneliness as a Crucial Factor in Preventing or Alleviating Youth Anxiety and Depression: A Critical Interpretative Synthesis Incorporating Rapid Realist Review Techniques. Translational Psychiatry, 11(1), 628.