Purpose Loneliness is associated with poor health including premature mortality. There are cross-sectional associations with depression, anxiety, psychosis, and other mental health outcomes. However, it is not known whether loneliness is causally linked with the new onset of mental health problems in the general population. Longitudinal studies are key to understanding this relationship. We synthesized evidence from longitudinal studies investigating the relationship between loneliness and new onset of mental health problems, in the general population. Method We systematically searched six electronic databases, unpublished sources, and hand-searched of references, up to August 2021. We conducted a meta-analysis of eight independent cohorts and narrative synthesis of the remaining studies. Results We included 32 studies, of which the majority focused on depression. Our narrative synthesis found most studies show loneliness at baseline which is associated with the subsequent new onset of depression. The few studies on anxiety and self-harm also showed a positive association. Our meta-analysis found a pooled adjusted odds ratio of 2.33 (95% CI 1.62–3.34) for risk of new onset depression in adults who were often lonely compared with people who were not often lonely. This should be interpreted with caution given evidence of heterogeneity. Conclusion Loneliness is a public mental health issue. There is growing evidence; it is associated with the onset of depression and other common mental health problems. Future studies should explore its impact across the age range and in more diverse populations, look beyond depression, and explore the mechanisms involved with a view to better informing appropriate interventions.

Background Loneliness is prevalent among people with a “personality disorder” diagnosis or who have related personality traits, but the experience of loneliness among people with “personality disorder” diagnoses/traits has not been well described. A qualitative approach has potential to help understand the experience of loneliness among people with “personality disorder” diagnoses/traits, and to develop interventions that promote recovery. We therefore aimed to synthesise the qualitative literature relevant to this topic. Method We conducted a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies exploring the subjective experience of loneliness as reported by people with “personality disorder” diagnoses/traits. We searched four databases using pre-formulated search terms, selected eligible articles, appraised the quality of each, and analyzed data from eligible studies using thematic synthesis. Result We identified 39 articles that described the experience of loneliness in people with “personality disorder” diagnoses/traits. From extracted data, we identified seven themes: (1) disconnection and emptiness: a “haunting alienation”, (2) alienation arising from childhood experiences, (3) thwarted desire for closeness and connection, (4) paradox: for both closeness and distance, (5) experiences of existential loneliness, (6) recovery, embedded in a social world, and (7) group therapy: a setback. Our results suggest that for our sample early alienating and traumatic experiences may pave the way for experiences of loneliness, which further exacerbate “personality disorder” symptoms and distress. Conclusion Despite describing a need to belong and efforts to cope with unmet social needs, people with “personality disorder” diagnoses/traits (particularly “emotionally unstable personality disorder”) report experiencing an intense disconnection from other people. This seems rooted in early adversities, reinforced by later traumatic experiences. Given the apparent salience of loneliness to people with “personality disorder” diagnoses/traits, interventions focused on helping people connect with others, which may include both psychological and social components, have potential to be beneficial in reducing loneliness and promoting recovery.

Background Social isolation encompasses subjective and objective concepts. Both are associated with negative health consequences and are more prevalent among people with mental health problems than among the general population. To alleviate social isolation, digital interventions have potential as accessible alternatives or adjuncts to face-to-face interventions. This scoping review aimed to describe the types of digital interventions evaluated for feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness in alleviating social isolation among individuals with mental health problems, and to present an overview of the quantitative evidence yielded to inform future intervention design. Methods We searched five electronic databases for quantitative and mixed methods studies published between January 2000 and July 2020. Studies were included if they evaluated digital interventions for individuals with mental health conditions, had subjective and/or objective social isolation as their primary outcome, or as one of their outcomes if no primary outcome was specified. Feasibility studies were included if feasibility outcomes were the primary outcomes and social isolation was among their secondary outcomes. A narrative synthesis was conducted to present our findings. The protocol was registered on Open Science Framework (doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/CNX8A). Results Thirty-two studies were included for our review: 16 feasibility studies, seven single-group studies and nine effectiveness trials. There was great variation in the interventions, study designs and sample populations. Interventions included web-based programmes, phone-based programmes, blended interventions, socially assistive robots and virtual reality interventions. Many were feasibility studies, or otherwise not fully powered to detect an effect if one were present, thus preventing clear conclusions about clinical effectiveness. Satisfactory feasibility outcomes indicated potential for future trials to assess these interventions. Conclusion Our scoping review identified a range of digital approaches utilized to alleviate social isolation among individuals with mental health disorders. Conclusions regarding clinical effectiveness cannot be reached due to variability of approaches and lack of large-scale randomized controlled trials. To make clear recommendations for digital social isolation interventions, future research needs to be based on rigorous methods and larger samples. Future studies should also focus on utilizing theory-driven approaches and improving existing approaches to advance the field.

No abstract