Solving the Youth Loneliness Epidemic
- GAB NEWS
- 1 day ago
- 6 min read
Feeling lonely is something most of us have experienced. For today's young people, however, loneliness has become more persistent and consequential. The World Health Organization now prioritizes loneliness as a global public health crisis. Numbers in a recent WHO report make that case: One in six people worldwide are affected, with teenagers aged 13-17 reporting the highest rates of any age group at approximately one in five.
Loneliness is defined as the gap between the social connections we want and those we actually have. This gap helps explain why people experience loneliness differently, and it is this dissatisfaction that forms the distinction from social isolation. A caregiver may be socially isolated when they don’t have access to social networks of extended family and friends but may or may not experience loneliness. In contrast, a student can be constantly surrounded by classmates yet feel lonely if those social connections are perceived as lacking depth or meaning. Although it is normal to experience loneliness at times throughout life, concerns arise when loneliness persists over time and with strong intensity.
As our society has moved through the COVID-19 pandemic into deepening social division while also increasing use of digital technologies at alarming rates, I’ve watched loneliness move from the margins to the center of conversations about student well-being. For young people, loneliness doesn't just hurt emotionally; it raises risk for serious health, educational, and financial outcomes. In fact, the longer-term health consequences are striking: Research links loneliness to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, depression, anxiety, and even earlier death.
Many reasons have been proposed as to why teens experience the highest rates of loneliness, such as less time hanging out with friends, increased social media use, or dissatisfaction with the quality of in-person interactions. Understanding why matters, but knowing what to do matters even more. The good news is that interventions to address loneliness exist and are effective. This makes a compelling case to get these interventions in place as part of a plan for not only addressing loneliness but also preventing serious health and well-being problems down the road.
Approaches to Addressing Loneliness
Interventions to address loneliness have been approached from multiple angles, and have varied in format and delivery. Some bring people together in groups whereas others are delivered one-on-one, and some are in person while others are online. The focus of some interventions is on expanding people's social circles by creating increased opportunities for interaction. Others target the skills needed to form and maintain relationships—that is, teaching people how to connect more effectively. Still others work at the education and psychological level, teaching about loneliness and addressing the thought patterns and emotional responses that can trap people in cycles of loneliness.
The range of possible approaches makes it challenging to sort what actually works, and for whom. That's what makes the new review published in American Psychologist so important. The meta-analysis (a review across many studies) by Lasgaard and colleagues offers a comprehensive examination, examining five main intervention approaches:
Social Support. Interventions that provide regular care and companionship to foster sense of connection, like mentorship programs or "lunch bunch" groups.
Social Network Expansion. Interventions that expand social circles by creating opportunities for social interaction, such as activity group and excursions or structured recess programs.
Social and Emotional Skill-Building. Interventions intended to build important skills like social awareness, emotion-coping, perspective-taking, or effective communication.
Psychoeducation. Intervention strategies designed to increase understanding about loneliness, reduce stigma and offer intervention options, like classroom lessons to normalize symptoms or group discussions about coping strategies.
Psychological. Interventions that address thoughts, emotions, and behaviors that can fuel and maintain loneliness, like cognitive-behavioraltherapy, mindfulness programs, or counseling.
Drawing from 280 studies involving participants across childhood through older adult ages, the researchers found that interventions designed to reduce loneliness actually work. Positive effects were found across intervention approaches, but the strongest evidence was reported for psychological interventions. The researchers noted this finding may be because psychological interventions tend to include processes that can address a range of mental conditions beyond the target of loneliness. Loneliness interventions were found to be effective in both the short (up to 4 weeks) and long (1-6 months) term, although some effects were small to moderate.
Given the scale of this analysis across intervention types, ages, implementation settings, and measured outcomes, it’s hard to definitively state the impact. It is encouraging, however, that positive effects were found across age groups. It’s also interesting that group-based delivery showed larger effects than individual interventions. Both of these findings, taken together with the overall body of evidence supporting effectiveness, point to several directions for collaboration across family, school, and youth-serving organizations.
What Schools, Families, and Youth-Serving Organizations Can Do Together
First, it’s important to emphasize that researchers found the intervention approaches were effective for children and adolescents. This focus on youth doesn't diminish the importance of supporting lonely adults, but it does highlight critical roles for schools, families, and youth-serving organizations in societal health and well-being prevention efforts. Just as we teach children to read and write to succeed academically, we can help them develop strong social connection skills and learn to recognize, understand, and address loneliness so they may be less likely to experience chronic loneliness and related health consequences later in life.
Second, study findings support the use of varied intervention approaches and potential for combinations of active treatment ingredients. A menu of options allows flexible selection in ways that fit the available resources, specific context, and individuals or groups of interest. In addition, menu flexibility means that there is ample space for collaboration across family, school, and youth-serving organizations. For example, potential youth-focused opportunities aligned with each of the intervention approaches include:
Facilitate Connections with Quality Over Quantity (Social Support). Loneliness is about meaningful connection, not popularity. Adults across settings can help young people establish a few deep, authentic friendships over large social networks or being liked by everyone. This can be particularly important in an era when social media can reinforce broad but shallow connections, or phone snubbing (‘phubbing’) which refers to being ignored by someone glued to their phone in same room.
Enable Structured Opportunities for Connection (Social Network). Schools and youth-serving organizations can emphasize implementation of cooperative learning activities, peer mentoring programs, and interest-based clubs. Families can encourage participation in at least one activity for connection around shared purpose, such as extracurricular activities, sports teams, arts programs, or community service. Adults across settings can encourage experiences with in-person participation, and create space for extra moments of face-to-face interaction.
Support Social and Emotional Growth (Social and Emotional Skill-Building). Schools can implement opportunities to explicitly teach critical life skills like effective communication, self-control, emotion-coping, and responsible decision-making. Families can reinforce these skills at home through conversation practice, role-playing, and modeling healthy friendships. Youth-serving organizations can collaborate with schools and families to reinforce common language and emphasis on skill-building practice.
Normalize and Address Loneliness Directly (Psychoeducation). Adults across settings can talk openly about loneliness. Schools can integrate classroom lessons that teach students loneliness is a common human experience, not a personal failing. Families can initiate conversations to help youth understand that feeling lonely sometimes is normal, and something that can be addressed together.
Provide More Intensive Support When Needed (Psychological Interventions). Schools, families, and youth-serving organizations can work together to reduce stigma around seeking help for youth experiencing persistent loneliness. School mental health staff can work with families to offer cognitive-behavioral strategies that foster self-awareness, target maladaptive thinking patterns, and offer positive coping strategies. Professional support from behavioral health providers can be sought when loneliness persists.
There is no time to waste in addressing the high reports of loneliness globally, and particularly among teenagers. Results from this new meta-analysisprovide important directions for tackling the loneliness epidemic. What's clear is that addressing youth loneliness requires action at multiple levels: family participation, classroom practices, community programs, and individual interventions. We know how to build the environments and skills that protect youth against loneliness. The earlier in life that we start, the better.
To find a therapist, visit the Psychology Today Therapy Directory.
References
Lasgaard, M., Qualter, P., Løvschall, C., Laustsen, L. M., Lim, M. H., Sjøl, S. E., Burke, L., Blæhr, E. E., Maindal, H. T., Hargaard, A., Christensen, R., & Christiansen, J. (2026). Are loneliness interventions effective for reducing loneliness? A meta-analytic review of 280 studies. American Psychologist, 81(1), 36-52.
references
Comments