Band Rebecca, Kinsella Karina, Ellis Jaimie, James Elizabeth, Ciccognani Sandy, Breheny Katie, Kandiyali Rebecca, Ewings Sean, Rogers Anne
The Centre for Ageing and Dementia Research (CADR), School of Health and Social Care, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, UK.
School of Health, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Public Health Res (Southampt). 2025 Mar;13(1):1-86. doi: 10.3310/WTJH4379.
Loneliness and social isolation are associated with adverse mental and physical health outcomes in adults. However, there is a lack of existing research on effective interventions and the contexts in which these could be implemented.
To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a social network intervention compared to usual care among at-risk populations.
A pragmatic, community-based, cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded health economic evaluation, process evaluation and qualitative study. Outcome assessments were conducted at baseline and at 3 and 6 months.
The study was conducted in collaboration with 44 community-based organisations in two regions in England.
Adults aged ≥ 18 years at risk of loneliness and social isolation.
A facilitated social network tool ('project about loneliness and social networks'; PALS) designed to link people to opportunities for social involvement. First, participants map and reflect on personal social networks. Second, identification of local resources based on individual preferences, available support, and health and wellness needs.
The primary outcome was mental wellness at 6-month follow-up, measured by the Short Form questionnaire-12 items mental health component score (MCS). Secondary outcomes included the Short Form questionnaire-12 items Physical Health subscale, loneliness, social isolation, well-being and collective efficacy. Economic measures assessed the cost-effectiveness of the intervention in terms of costs, quality-adjusted life-years and net monetary benefits.
We recruited 469 adults into the study, with 120 withdrawals (25.6%). The main trial results indicate little to no treatment effect of the intervention on either the primary or secondary outcomes compared to usual care. The within-trial economic evaluation found that PALS was inexpensive to deliver but there was no significant difference in quality-adjusted life-years, measures of well-being capability or costs, and the intervention did not lead to demonstrable cost-effectiveness in terms of net monetary benefits. The process evaluation found PALS to be acceptable to all types of community organisations, but low resource availability and capacity to sustain PALS was found across all community organisational contexts. Qualitative interviews ( = 20) highlighted that participants wanted to engage with meaningful social activities but barriers to doing so were psychological (i.e. confidence and competence) and practical (i.e. transport or cost).
The timing of COVID-19 and associated restrictions (approximately splitting trial follow-up into thirds of pre-COVID, during the first lockdown, and following the trial reopening) meant its impact on the trial is difficult to assess. There were high levels of missing data (20-30% for most outcomes at 6 months), though methods to handle missing data did not change the conclusions of the trial.
Our findings do not provide strong evidence of the efficacy of the PALS social network intervention to address the complexities of loneliness and social isolation. Although the intervention was acceptable to participants and community organisations who hold the potential to deliver such an intervention, sustainability would require a networked approach between organisations to mitigate against the challenges found in each organisation.
Future interventions for loneliness would likely benefit from utilising a multistep approach providing tailored psychological, relational and social components.
This trial is registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19193075.
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/08/41) and is published in full in ; Vol. 13, No. 1. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
孤独和社会隔离与成年人不良的身心健康结果相关。然而,目前缺乏关于有效干预措施以及可实施这些措施的背景环境的研究。
评估社交网络干预措施与高危人群常规护理相比的临床效果和成本效益。
一项实用的、基于社区的整群随机对照试验,包含卫生经济评估、过程评估和定性研究。在基线、3个月和6个月时进行结果评估。
该研究与英格兰两个地区的44个社区组织合作开展。
年龄≥18岁、有孤独和社会隔离风险的成年人。
一种促进社交网络的工具(“孤独与社交网络项目”;PALS),旨在将人们与社会参与机会联系起来。首先,参与者绘制并反思个人社交网络。其次,根据个人偏好、可用支持以及健康和幸福需求确定当地资源。
主要结局是6个月随访时的心理健康状况,通过简短问卷-12项心理健康分量表得分(MCS)来衡量。次要结局包括简短问卷-12项身体健康子量表、孤独感、社会隔离、幸福感和集体效能感。经济指标从成本、质量调整生命年和净货币效益方面评估干预措施的成本效益。
我们招募了469名成年人参与研究,120人退出(25.6%)。主要试验结果表明,与常规护理相比,该干预措施对主要结局和次要结局几乎没有治疗效果。试验中的经济评估发现,实施PALS成本较低,但在质量调整生命年、幸福感指标或成本方面没有显著差异,且该干预措施在净货币效益方面未显示出明显的成本效益。过程评估发现,PALS为各类社区组织所接受,但在所有社区组织环境中都发现资源可用性和维持PALS的能力较低。定性访谈(n = 20)强调,参与者希望参与有意义的社交活动,但这样做的障碍包括心理方面(即信心和能力)和实际方面(即交通或成本)。
2019冠状病毒病及其相关限制措施的时间安排(大约将试验随访分为新冠疫情前、首次封锁期间和试验重新开放后三个阶段)意味着其对试验的影响难以评估。存在大量缺失数据(6个月时大多数结局的缺失数据为20%-30%),尽管处理缺失数据的方法并未改变试验结论。
我们的研究结果并未提供有力证据证明PALS社交网络干预措施在解决孤独和社会隔离复杂性方面的有效性。尽管该干预措施为有能力实施此类干预的参与者和社区组织所接受,但可持续性需要各组织之间采用网络化方法来应对每个组织中发现的挑战。
未来针对孤独的干预措施可能会从采用提供量身定制的心理、人际关系和社会组成部分的多步骤方法中受益。
本试验在“当前受控试验”注册,注册号为ISRCTN19193075。
本研究由英国国家卫生与保健研究机构(NIHR)公共卫生研究项目资助(NIHR资助编号:16/08/41),全文发表于《……》;第13卷,第1期。有关更多资助信息,请访问NIHR资助与奖项网站。