Efficacy of Technology-Based Interventions on the Reduction of Loneliness: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Loneliness is a widespread public health concern linked to increased risks of health problems. As populations age, the demand for effective interventions to mitigate loneliness continues to grow. Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to examine the effectiveness of technology-based interventions in reducing loneliness. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in Web of Science, PsycInfo, PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Embase, and the Cochrane Library in August 2024. We included randomized controlled trials that examined the effectiveness of technology-based interventions compared with any control group in reducing loneliness across all age groups. Nonrandomized studies, qualitative research, and studies lacking sufficient statistical data for effect size calculation were excluded. After screening 1089 records, 7 studies involving 580 participants met the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted by 3 independent reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by a fourth reviewer. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. A random-effects model was used to synthesize effect estimates, with standardized mean differences as the primary effect size metric. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q statistic and ² index, and a prediction interval was calculated to estimate the expected range of true effects. Results: We found a small and statistically nonsignificant overall effect of technology-based interventions on loneliness (pooled standardized mean difference=–0.21, 95% CI –0.59 to 0.17; 95% prediction interval –1.14 to 0.63). Substantial between-study variability was present (²=57%; τ²=0.08; =0.28), and the prediction interval indicated that true effects in future studies may range from substantial reductions to moderate increases in loneliness. Differences between intervention types could not be examined due to the limited number of eligible studies. The Egger test showed significant funnel plot asymmetry (=–5.47; =.003). However, since the trim-and-fill method identified no missing studies, the asymmetry is unlikely to be fully explained by publication bias. Conclusions: Unlike previous reviews, which focused primarily on older populations or included nonrandomized studies, this meta-analysis provides a rigorous synthesis of only randomized controlled trials across the lifespan. Our findings do not provide evidence for a reliable reduction in loneliness following technology-based interventions. Moderate heterogeneity indicates that effects differ across studies, and the limited number of eligible trials prevented the analysis of potential moderators. By incorporating robust prediction intervals and a broader age demographic, this study offers a more comprehensive view of the variability of intervention outcomes compared with existing literature. The wide prediction interval suggests that intervention effects may vary across settings. In practice, technology-based approaches should be viewed as supportive tools that require careful tailoring rather than universal solutions to loneliness. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42024505117; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024505117