IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v43y2025i9d10.1007_s40273-025-01516-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Updated Systematic Literature Review of the Economic Costs of Loneliness and Social Isolation and the Cost Effectiveness of Interventions

Author

Listed:
  • Lidia Engel

    (Monash University)

  • Muhammad Fikru Rizal

    (Monash University)

  • Sharon Clifford

    (Monash University)

  • Jan Faller

    (Monash University)

  • Michelle H. Lim

    (The University of Sydney)

  • Long Khanh-Dao Le

    (Monash University)

  • Mary Lou Chatterton

    (Monash University)

  • Cathrine Mihalopoulos

    (Monash University)

Abstract

Purpose There has been growing interest in understanding the economic impacts of loneliness and social isolation. This study updates a previous review on the economic costs of loneliness and social isolation and the cost effectiveness of related interventions. Methods We conducted a systematic search in the MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Embase databases from 2018 to 13 August 2024, supplemented by a search of the grey literature. Studies included cost-of-illness studies, economic evaluations, and social return on investment (SROI) analyses published in the English language. All studies were evaluated for quality and summarised using a narrative approach. Costs reported were converted into US$, year 2024 values. Results In total, 15 studies were included: six cost-of-illness studies, four economic evaluations, and five SROI studies. Cost-of-illness studies primarily examined healthcare and productivity costs. All but one study reported excess costs linked to loneliness and social isolation, ranging from US$2 billion to US$25.2 billion per annum. Among four economic evaluations, three were model-based cost-utility or cost-effectiveness analyses (targeting older adults and the general population), and one was trial based (focusing on low-income individuals with health issues). One study found an intervention cost effective, whereas cost-effectiveness probabilities in others ranged from 54% to 68%. One study concluded that an intervention to reduce severe loneliness in older adults was cost effective but unlikely to be cost saving. All SROI studies reported positive returns, with SROI ratios ranging from US$2.28 to US$13.72. Conclusion This review highlights additional evidence on the economic burden of loneliness and social isolation. Future research should explore broader cost impacts beyond healthcare and expand cost-effectiveness studies to younger populations.

Suggested Citation

  • Lidia Engel & Muhammad Fikru Rizal & Sharon Clifford & Jan Faller & Michelle H. Lim & Long Khanh-Dao Le & Mary Lou Chatterton & Cathrine Mihalopoulos, 2025. "An Updated Systematic Literature Review of the Economic Costs of Loneliness and Social Isolation and the Cost Effectiveness of Interventions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 43(9), pages 1047-1063, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:43:y:2025:i:9:d:10.1007_s40273-025-01516-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-025-01516-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-025-01516-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-025-01516-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:43:y:2025:i:9:d:10.1007_s40273-025-01516-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.