A Systematic Review of Studies Describing the Effectiveness, Acceptability, and Potential Harms of Place-Based Interventions to Address Loneliness and Mental Health Problems

Yung-Chia Hsueh, Rachel Batchelor, Margaux Liebmann, Ashley Dhanani, Laura Vaughan, Anne-Kathrin Fett, Farhana Mann and Alexandra Pitman
Additional contact information
Yung-Chia Hsueh: Division of Psychiatry, University College London (UCL), London W1T 7NF, UK
Rachel Batchelor: Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing BN13 3EP, UK
Margaux Liebmann: Division of Psychiatry, University College London (UCL), London W1T 7NF, UK
Ashley Dhanani: Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London (UCL), London WC1H 0AY, UK
Laura Vaughan: Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London (UCL), London WC1H 0AY, UK
Anne-Kathrin Fett: Department of Psychology, City, University of London, London EC1V 0HB, UK
Farhana Mann: Division of Psychiatry, University College London (UCL), London W1T 7NF, UK
Alexandra Pitman: Division of Psychiatry, University College London (UCL), London W1T 7NF, UK

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 8, 1-29

Abstract: Given the links between the built environment and loneliness, there is interest in using place-based approaches (addressing built environment characteristics and related socio-spatial factors) in local communities to tackle loneliness and mental health problems. However, few studies have described the effectiveness, acceptability, or potential harms of such interventions. This review aimed to synthesize the literature describing local community-based interventions that target place-based factors to address loneliness and mental health problems, informing the development of future public health approaches. We searched PsycINFO, Medline, and Embase using a structured search strategy to identify English-language studies evaluating the effectiveness, acceptability, and potential harms of place-based community interventions in addressing loneliness and mental health problems, both in general and clinical populations. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria, classified as evaluating provision of community facilities (such as clubhouses), active engagement in local green spaces, and housing regeneration. None were randomised trials. Quantitative and qualitative findings suggested promising effects and/or acceptability of six interventions, with minimal potential harms. There is a clear need for randomised trials or quasi-experimental studies of place-based interventions to describe their effectiveness in addressing loneliness and mental health problems, as well as complementary qualitative work investigating acceptability. This will inform future policy development.

Keywords: loneliness; mental health; built environment; nature; garden; community (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/8/4766/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/8/4766/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:8:p:4766-:d:794123

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().