Social Connections and Loneliness in OECD Countries

Report

16 October 2025

1. An overview of what social connections are, why they matter, and how and for whom they have changed in recent years

Copy link to 1. An overview of what social connections are, why they matter, and how and for whom they have changed in recent years

Abstract

Social connections – how people interact with and relate to one another – have far-reaching effects on health, employment, education and civic engagement. A growing number of OECD governments are recognising their importance and prioritising policies to strengthen them. This report provides the first comprehensive overview of social connections levels, trends and inequalities across OECD countries using high-quality official data. It finds that (1) people are meeting in person less frequently than before, while subjective assessments of social connections have shown signs of deterioration only recently, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) men and young people – previously at lower risk – are increasingly vulnerable to poor outcomes; (3) deprivations in social connections often overlap with socio-economic disadvantage; and (4) while the drivers of social connections are complex, they include the provision of public goods and services, and take place in the broader context of digitalisation, making them amenable to policy action.

A fulfilling social life is an essential part of a healthy human life. Social connections – the time people spend with others, the support they give and receive, and the quality and diversity of their relationships – improve physical and mental health, enhance job satisfaction and cooperation, and strengthen the community bonds that bolster resilience. Conversely, prolonged social isolation, loneliness and disconnection can have serious health consequences, further straining overburdened healthcare systems, limit labour market participation and discourage civic participation. In the years following the COVID-19 pandemic, which profoundly disrupted social life through distancing, confinement policies, and school and workplace closures, governments across OECD countries have increasingly recognised the importance of strengthening social ties. There is now growing consensus that public policy plays a key role in creating and sustaining the structures that promote or hinder connectedness. The evidence base on what works best to promote connectedness is growing fast, but is nevertheless still in early stages (WHO, 2025[1]; Schnepf, d’Hombres and Mauri, 2024[2]; Lim, Eres and Vasan, 2020[3]; Dahlberg et al., 2022[4]). As this report highlights, promising approaches include mechanisms that target the socio-economic determinants of disconnection, initiatives that focus on the community as a whole rather than only on lonely individuals – such as improving access to social infrastructure (broadly accessible public spaces centred around socialising) – and efforts to ensure safe and enriching online interactions, especially for young people. Effective evaluations of these newly emerging national strategies and policy interventions require a robust understanding of who is most affected by social disconnection, and how different aspects of social connectedness are evolving.

Despite the growing public interest, social connections have traditionally been an area in which official statistics have been less developed and harmonised. Previous OECD work has scoped current measurement practice by national statistical offices in OECD countries to understand the extent to which social connections outcomes are currently captured in national surveys. The exercise revealed that almost all OECD countries are active in measuring social connections, however data collection practices are uneven and some important outcomes, such as loneliness, are only included in fewer than 40% of national surveys (Mahoney et al., 2024[5]).1 As a part of broader well-being monitoring efforts, the OECD regularly publishes a flagship statistical report, How’s Life?, to understand how the different outcomes encompassing the OECD Well-being Framework (Box 1.1) are evolving for society at large. Social connections have always been included as one of many well-being aspects considered, however thus far there have been no in-depth investigations into the topic.2 Additionally, recent large-scale but thus far one-off international data collection efforts by intergovernmental, private and academic actors – including the 2022 Gallup World Poll’s collaborative survey with Meta (covering all OECD countries) as well as its preceding pilot exercise in a smaller sub-set of countries called the Global State of Social Connections; the EU Joint Research Centre’s 2022 EU Loneliness Survey (covering all European OECD countries); and AXA’s Mind Health Survey (covering twelve OECD countries) – have contributed to the availability of a broader range of data on social connections outcomes. Yet on their own, these initiatives do not provide the longitudinal insights needed to track social connections trends over time.

To provide the most complete picture of social connectedness across OECD countries to date, this special edition of the How’s Life? series combines official data from national statistical offices with data from these newer cross-country surveys. This includes harmonised information from Eurostat’s European Survey on Income and Living Conditions and evidence from official national datasets, highlighting synergies in findings across sources and at times diverging trends across regions (refer to the Reader’s Guide and Annexes in Chapters 2 and 3 for details on all sources used). This combination of high-quality time series data and large sample sizes enables the analysis of changes over time – both overall and by population group – and helps to identify emerging at-risk groups. Going forward, it will be important to continue the current momentum in (inter)national efforts to improve and harmonise measurement practice, driven by efforts in academia and international policy such as those led by the OECD and the United Nations Friends of the Chair Group on Social and Demographic Statistics (UN-FOCG-SD).3

Box 1.1. What is multidimensional well-being?

Copy link to Box 1.1. What is multidimensional well-being?

As part of its efforts to monitor societal progress in a holistic and people-centred way, the OECD defines well-being as encompassing the material conditions, quality of life, relational, environmental and civic outcomes that shape people’s lives now, and into the future (Figure 1.1).

Social connections are one, stand-alone dimension of the well-being framework that includes indicators referring to the quantity and quality of time people spend together, alongside the support they receive from others. Other dimensions of the framework capture aspects of aggregate communal and societal connections, in particular the social capital dimension, which refers to societal norms, shared values and institutional arrangements that encourage cooperation between groups.

At the national level, more than 70% of OECD countries have developed initiatives focused on monitoring multidimensional well-being; of these, some have begun integrating well-being principles such as multidimensionality, equity and inclusion, people-focused outcomes and long time horizons into policy. These policy efforts range from strategic goal-setting, to assessing trade-offs and synergies in appraisal and impact evaluation, and informing resource allocation (OECD, 2023[6]).

Figure 1.1. The OECD Well-being Framework
Copy link to Figure 1.1. The OECD Well-being Framework

This chapter presents the key messages from this analysis. It begins with a working definition of the different aspects of social connectedness, encompassing structure, function and quality, making the case that ideally collecting and analysing information on several of these aspects is necessary for a complete picture. It then outlines why social connections matter for broader well-being and summarises the various strategies recently adopted across OECD countries and at the international level to foster them. The key findings of the report are that (1) longer-term trends show that people across OECD countries are meeting in person less often than in the past, while self-assessments of social connections quality slightly worsened between 2018 and 2022, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) men and young people – groups previously considered at lower risk – are increasingly vulnerable to poor social connectedness; (3) deprivations in social connections often overlap with socio-economic disadvantage; and (4) while the drivers of social connections are complex, they are partly influenced by government choices, either purposeful or unintended, that target the socio-economic determinants of well-being, how and where services are delivered, the make-up of the built environment and the nature of online spaces – all of which are amendable to policy intervention.

Readers seeking further detail will find it in the chapters that follow: Chapter 2 examines current social connections outcomes across OECD countries; Chapter 3 explores how these outcomes vary across socio-demographic groups and identifies who is most and least connected; Chapter 4 tracks both medium-term (10-15 years) and short-term (post-2018/19) trends, highlighting newly emerging at-risk populations. Chapter 5 closes with a discussion of two emerging areas of research: the role of social infrastructure for quantity and quality of social interactions, as well as that of digital technology and social media.

Defining social connections

Copy link to Defining social connections

Social connections encompass the various ways that people interact with and relate to one another. Figure 1.2 presents a conceptual framework – based on Holt-Lunstad, Robles and Sbarra (2017[8]) and widely adopted in both academic literature and policy design (see Mahoney et al., (2024[5]) for a longer discussion) – to clarify the key constituent parts of social connectedness outcomes. These include structural aspects, referring to the existence of social relationships, roles and interactions; functional outcomes, which capture the support – actual or perceived – provided through these relationships; quality measures, reflecting both positive and negative features of social relationships; and communal and societal connectedness, capturing an individual’s sense of belonging and relationship to broader social groups.4 This report focuses primarily on structural, functional and quality aspects of individual-level social connections, with key terms defined in Box 1.2. It distinguishes between quantitative outcomes – such as how people spend their time and with whom, largely reflecting structural aspects, and qualitative outcomes, like feelings of loneliness, perceived social support and relationship satisfaction, which reflect aspects of function and quality.

Figure 1.2. A conceptual framework of social connections
Copy link to Figure 1.2. A conceptual framework of social connections

Box 1.2. Key terms and definitions

Copy link to Box 1.2. Key terms and definitions

The following definitions are used throughout this report:

Social connections: is an umbrella term that encompasses the many ways that people interact with and relate to one another. It includes both the quantity and quality of time spent with others, and how much support people feel they have.
Social network: refers to how many people an individual interacts with, and who these people are.
Social isolation: the frequency, duration and extent of interactions – i.e., objective conditions, such as spending little time with others, and/or having a small social network. Social isolation is distinct from experiencing loneliness: it is possible to spend time alone without feeling lonely, just as it is possible to feel lonely even when spending time with others.
Loneliness: is a subjective experience that results from an individual’s perception of being undesirably isolated, or from feeling that their needs are not being met in their relationships with others. Loneliness is one qualitative aspect of relationships, distinct from measures of relationship quantity (e.g. social network size, or the amount of time spent with others).
Social support: is the actual or perceived support – both material and non-material (i.e., social emotional) – provided by interpersonal relationships.

Source: Adapted from Mahoney et al. (2024[5]), refer to Box 1.1.

Evidence outlined in the next section shows how loneliness, isolation, and network diversity and quality all play a role in influencing health, employment, financial and community outcomes. Importantly, however, different facets of social connections capture different latent constructs (Huxhold, Suanet and Wetzel, 2022[9]; Perissinotto and Covinsky, 2014[10]; Danvers et al., 2023[11]), and each therefore influence well-being outcomes through different pathways (Holt-Lunstad and Smith, 2016[12]; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015[13]). This underscores the need to collect data on social connections that span quantitative (structural), functional and qualitative outcomes, and on both positive outcomes and deprivations, to inform effective policy interventions (Holt-Lunstad, 2025[14]).

The dynamics of each outcome type differ, and individuals that perform well in some aspects of social connections do not necessarily have good outcomes in other areas. For example, correlational analysis of microdata from the EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions survey shows only a weak relationship between the frequency of in-person or remote contact with friends and family, and outcomes like loneliness and dissatisfaction with personal relationships (Table 1.1).5

	Get together with family in person on a daily basis	Get together with friends in person on a daily basis	Contact family remotely on a daily basis	Contact friends remotely on a daily basis	Felt lonely most or all of the time over the past four weeks
Get together with friends in person on a daily basis	0.23
Contact family remotely on a daily basis	0.27	0.13
Contact friends remotely on a daily basis	0.10	0.32	0.31
Felt lonely most or all of the time over the past four weeks	-0.01	-0.02	-0.02	-0.04
Dissatisfied with personal relationships	-0.02	-0.02	-0.05	-0.04	0.24

Note: Table displays weighted listwise Pearson correlation coefficients between the structure, function and quality of social connections outcomes at the individual level, using microdata from 23 European OECD countries in 2022. OECD EU-EFTA 23 refers to Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.

Source: OECD calculations based on Eurostat (n.d.[15]), European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) – Scientific Use File (SUF) (database), 2022 six-yearly rolling module on “Quality of life”, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/microdata/european-union-statistics-on-income-and-living-conditions (Accessed in October 2024).

Why social connections matter for other policy goals

Copy link to Why social connections matter for other policy goals

Efforts to quantify the societal costs of loneliness and isolation have grown in recent years, and various estimates for different national contexts range from USD 400 billion a year to the U.S. economy (Cigna, 2020[16]; CDC, 2023[17]), to 1.2% of annual GDP in Spain (Rodríguez, Castiñeira and Rodríguez-Míguez, 2023[18]), DKK 7 million annually in Denmark (AGE Platform Europe, 2023[19]; Hamilton, 2023[20]), GBP 2 billion per year for employers in the United Kingdom (New Economics Foundation, 2017[21]) and the combined economic, policy and health-related costs of social isolation in young Korean adults totals KRW 7 trillion, or KRW 21 million per person (Korea Youth Foundation, 2023[22]). A recent systematic literature review found that across fifteen studies – including evidence from six countries6 – the estimated costs of loneliness and social isolation ranged from USD 2 billion to USD 25.2 billion per year (Engel et al., 2025[23]).

Relatedly, there is robust and increasing evidence linking social connections outcomes to a range of well-being outcomes. The most well-developed strand of literature focuses on the interlinkages between social connections and physical and mental health. Both feelings of loneliness as well as social isolation are associated with worse physical health outcomes, including increasing the risk – and worsening the symptoms – of dementia, cardiovascular and coronary heart disease, and stroke (Akhter-Khan et al., 2021[24]; Penninkilampi et al., 2018[25]; Valtorta et al., 2016[26]; Freak-Poli et al., 2021[27]; Holwerda et al., 2014[28]), as well as premature mortality (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015[13]; Alm, Låftman and Bohman, 2019[29]). Recent analysis from the World Health Organization estimates that loneliness may be responsible for 871 000 deaths annually, across the globe (WHO, 2025[1]). Loneliness and isolation are also negatively associated with mental health outcomes (Wang et al., 2018[30]; Cruwys et al., 2013[31]; Cacioppo et al., 2011[32]; Hansen et al., 2017[33]), while people with larger and more supportive social networks tend to be happier, are more likely to feel satisfied with their lives and have better overall health outcomes (Amati et al., 2018[34]; Tomini, Tomini and Groot, 2016[35]; van der Horst and Coffé, 2012[36]).

However social connections have implications beyond health – touching aspects of material conditions, the local environment, civic engagement and community resilience. Loneliness is associated with poorer performance and productivity at work, a higher risk of absenteeism, unemployment or dropping out of an educational programme (Morrish, Mujica-Mota and Medina-Lara, 2022[37]; Matthews et al., 2016[38]; Maher et al., 2013[39]; Bowers et al., 2022[40]). On the other hand, supportive workplace relationships are associated with increased job satisfaction and creativity (Patel and Plowman, 2022[41]; Lleras-Muney et al., 2020[42]), and positive support from parents, friends, classmates and teachers may lead to better academic outcomes (Saeed et al., 2023[43]; Holahan, Valentiner and Moos, 1995[44]; Rueger, Malecki and Demaray, 2010[45]; Dwyer and Cummings, 2001[46]). Furthermore, larger social networks are shown to have a positive association with financial and labour market outcomes, as individuals are able to tap into their networks for help finding jobs and obtaining higher paying employment opportunities, thereby enhancing upward economic mobility (Calvó-Armengol and Jackson, 2004[47]; Montgomery, 1991[48]; Lleras-Muney et al., 2020[42]; Chetty et al., 2022[49]; Chetty et al., 2022[50]; Harris et al., 2025[51]). Beyond socio-economic considerations, strong social ties within a local community – including close relationships with one’s neighbours, community leaders or local service providers – are associated with crime reduction (Stuart and Taylor, 2021[52]) and a greater ability of the local area to respond to natural disasters (The U.S. Surgeon General, 2023[53]; Aldrich and Meyer, 2014[54]). Lastly, feelings of loneliness, isolation and lack of belonging shape patterns in civic engagement and voting behaviours (Neu et al., 2023[55]).

Rise in policy strategies addressing social connectedness

Copy link to Rise in policy strategies addressing social connectedness

Many OECD countries have identified social connections as a policy priority, even preceding the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The United Kingdom introduced a Minister for Loneliness in 2018, and soon there-after launched a national strategy to improve social connections (UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, 2018[56]; Local Government Association, 2018[57]); that same year, the Netherlands introduced its 2018 Loneliness Programme (Ministry of Health Welfare and Sport, 2023[58]).

In the years following the pandemic, the introduction of policy initiatives has accelerated. In 2021, the Japanese government appointed its first Minister for Social Isolation and Loneliness, and followed this three years later with new legislation requiring local governments to treat loneliness and isolation as whole-of-society issues (Prime Minister of Japan Cabinet Office, 2021[59]; Asahi Shimbun, 2024[60]). In 2022, the German Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth, adopted a Strategy against Loneliness which, in part, funds programmes to establish multi-generational homes, fund story-telling salons and community meeting places at the municipal level, and target outreach efforts at low-income elderly people most at risk for isolation (BMFSFJ, 2022[61]; BMFSFJ, 2022[62]). Also in 2021, the Austrian Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs, Healthcare and Consumer Protection debuted the Platform against Loneliness in Austria, a public-private-partnership co-funded by the European Union that provides a database of social infrastructure and group activities to enable residents to access needed support (Plattform Gegen Einsamkeit, 2021[63]). The following year, the Danish government introduced its National Partnership Against Loneliness – in collaboration with DaneAGE and the Red Cross – which was in part inspired by a 2021 survey that found loneliness cost society more than DKK 7 million per year (AGE Platform Europe, 2023[19]; Hamilton, 2023[20]).

More recently, in 2024 the city of Seoul announced the “Seoul without Loneliness” initiative to combat lonely deaths7 and isolation (Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2024[64]); in 2025, the Korean national government announced “Responding to Social Isolation and Loneliness across the Life Course” as a key policy priority, integrating existing programmes to support isolated adolescents and young adults, lonely death prevention for middle-aged and older adults, and support for older adults living alone into a comprehensive multi-agency system. Meanwhile, a Finnish Parliamentary Working Group on Strengthening Inclusion and Reducing Loneliness introduced its national strategy and action plan to reduce loneliness and build community in 2024, a collaborative effort between the Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, the National Board of Education, the National Institute for Health and Welfare and various civic organisations (Kunta Liitto, 2024[65]). In June 2025 the Swedish Public Health Agency released a national strategy to combat loneliness (Folkhälsomyndigheten, 2025[66]), the Lithuanian Ministry of Social Security and Labour supported the introduction of an emotional support line for older adults to combat their isolation and feelings of loneliness (Caritas, 2025[67]),8 and the Spanish Ministry of Social Rights and Agenda 2030 is currently developing a national strategy (EPE, 2022[68]). Other OECD countries – including Ireland, Norway, Slovenia and Türkiye – address social connections as a part of broader mental health or quality of life policies (WHO, 2025[1]; NIJZ, 2020[69]; BMYK, 2024[70]; Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet, 2025[71]), and many regional and local governments throughout the OECD have developed their own social connections initiatives.

International organisations are also active, particularly regarding awareness-raising and work to understand what is effective in promoting connectedness. For example, the European Commission has identified social isolation and loneliness as public health priorities (European Commission, 2022[72]), and the World Health Organization established a Global Commission on Social Connection to emphasise the key role of “social health” in driving health outcomes (WHO, 2023[73]) (Box 1.3). Both efforts include a measurement component: the European Commission supported the 2022 EU Loneliness Survey referenced in this report, and the WHO has used a modelling approach to estimate loneliness globally across WHO Member states, including those that do not collect any data on social connections outcomes directly (WHO, 2025[1]). Most recently, in May 2025 delegates of the World Health Assembly approved a resolution identifying social connections as a standalone global public health priority, and encouraging governments to introduce national strategies to combat isolation and loneliness, improve measurement tracking at the population level and increase public awareness (WHO, 2025[74]; Health Policy Watch, 2025[75]).

Box 1.3. The WHO Commission on Social Connection

Copy link to Box 1.3. The WHO Commission on Social Connection

In November 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched a three-year Commission on Social Connection to raise awareness of social connection, isolation and loneliness as global public health issues. The Commission aims to (1) increase visibility of these issues, (2) reframe them as global concerns affecting all age groups and regions and (3) accelerate proven solutions. It is led by 11 high-profile members, including government ministers and civil society leaders, co-chaired by Dr. Vivek Murthy (former U.S. Surgeon General) and Ms. Chido Mpemba (African Union Youth Commissioner) (WHO, 2023[73]).

In June 2025, the Commission released its report, From Loneliness to Social Connection: Charting a Path to Healthier Societies (WHO, 2025[1]). It argues that social health, with social connection at its heart, is a critical but often overlooked pillar of overall health – just as important as physical and mental well-being. Today, social disconnection is widespread. Between 2014 and 2023, loneliness affected nearly 1 in 6 people globally, contributing to an estimated 871 000 deaths annually. The report highlights three key messages:

1. Social disconnection is widespread, across all regions and age groups.

2. Its impacts are severe, affecting mortality, health, well-being, education, the economy and society.

3. Solutions exist and should be scaled up urgently.

The report defines key terms (social connection, isolation, loneliness) and presents global evidence on the scale, drivers and impacts of the issue. It also outlines effective strategies to foster connection and reduce social isolation and loneliness and concludes with five priority areas for action: policy, research, interventions, measurement and data, and engagement. The Commission will support awareness raising, the development of a policy database, upcoming WHO guidelines on interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness, and the creation of a Global Index on Social Connection.

Source: World Health Organization (2023[73]), WHO Commission on Social Connection. https://www.who.int/groups/commission-on-social-connection.

Key insights of this report

Copy link to Key insights of this report

Social connectedness is strong overall in OECD countries, but some experience lack of support, loneliness and dissatisfaction with relationships

This report draws on a range of high-quality data sources to assess the state of social connections across OECD countries, and to examine trends over time (Figure 1.3). Across 21 European OECD countries with comparable data in 2022, 11% of respondents report getting together with family in person on a daily basis in a typical year, and a similar number (12%) report doing so with friends. Conversely, rates of contacting family and friends remotely on a daily basis – via phone, text or social media messaging – are almost three times higher, at 29% and 28%, respectively. With regard to the function and quality of relationships, in OECD countries with comparable data, the large majority of the population has someone to count on in times of need, did not feel lonely most or all of the time over the past four weeks and is satisfied with personal relationships. However, on average, still 10% of people say they have no one to count on in times of need, 8% report having no close friends, 6% felt lonely most or all of the time over the past four weeks and 4% are dissatisfied with personal relationships.

Longer-term trends show that social connections are changing across OECD countries as people meet in person less often than in the past

Rates of in-person interaction with friends and family have steadily declined since 2006 – the first year for which data are available – while remote contact has increased (Figure 1.3).9 More research needs to be done on the actual quality of in-person vs. remote interactions to fully understand the implications of these new trends in socialising, especially as the impacts may be experienced differently by different population groups.

Fewer data points over time are available for outcomes such perceived social support and relationship satisfaction, however a comparison of rates between 2018 and 2022 show that average outcomes worsened slightly, but significantly (Figure 1.3). This decline takes place in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, meaning subjective assessments of relationships in 2022 may still reflect the lingering effects of social distancing, confinement policies and general uncertainty of the pandemic years. However, supplemental national data presented throughout this report and for which time series extend closer to the present day – and therefore allow for a more robust comparison of outcomes pre-, during and post-pandemic – suggest that some qualitative social connections outcomes have not returned to pre-pandemic levels, at least in some countries with available data.

Figure 1.3. At a glance: Social connections outcomes over time
Copy link to Figure 1.3. At a glance: Social connections outcomes over time

While average rates of feeling lonely most or all of the time remained relatively stable between 2018 and 2022 (Figure 1.3), a closer look at the data reveals that people are more frequently experiencing sporadic loneliness. In 2018, 59% of respondents in 22 European OECD countries said they “never” felt lonely over the past four weeks, but by 2022 this had fallen to 51% (Figure 1.4). Over the same period, the share of people who felt lonely “a little” or “some” of the time increased by 4 and 3 percentage points, respectively. These shifts in the broader distribution are not captured in typical aggregate measures of loneliness, which focus only on respondents who felt lonely “most’ or “all” of the time.

Figure 1.4. Fewer people never feel lonely, indicating rising low-level loneliness
Copy link to Figure 1.4. Fewer people never feel lonely, indicating rising low-level loneliness

Share who felt lonely _________ over the past 4 weeks, OECD EU-EFTA 22, 2018 vs. 2022

Men and young people are newly emerging risk groups for social disconnection

Both medium- and short-term trends presented in this report suggest that the groups experiencing the most consistent deteriorations in social connectedness are not those traditionally seen as most at-risk (Figure 1.5). For example, while women tend to report higher overall levels of feeling lonely than men (6.5% vs. 5.3% in 2022; see Chapter 3), data from 22 European OECD countries show that men experienced a 0.5 percentage point increase in feeling lonely between 2018 and 2022 (from 4.7% to 5.2%). While this might seem small, this increase was larger than that of both the overall population (+0.15 pp, from 5.7% to 5.8%) and women (from 6.44% to 6.41%, a change that was not statistically significant; see Chapter 4). Men also saw a greater rise in dissatisfaction with personal relationships over the same period (+0.4 pp, from 3.8% to 4.1%), compared to +0.2 pp for the total population (3.6% to 3.8%) and a non-significant +0.1 pp increase for women (3.5% to 3.6%) (see Chapter 4). These findings suggest that this potential emerging risk group might warrant greater attention in future monitoring and policy action.

The most striking finding in this report is the deterioration of outcomes for young people, across nearly all social connections indicators assessed. While young people still fare better in terms of overall levels of social connections in comparison to other population groups, these downward trends serve as early warning signs for policymakers. Between 2018 and 2022, those aged 16 to 24 experienced a 1 percentage point increase in feelings of loneliness (from 3.3% to 4.3%), the largest increase of any demographic group. They also saw the largest (albeit overall still small in magnitude) increases in dissatisfaction with relationships (+0.9 pp from 2018 to 2022, from 2.4% to 3.3%) and in reporting having no one to count on in times of need (+0.9 pp from 2011-16 to 2017-23, from 4.1% to 5.0%). While all deteriorations are small, they are consistent – across indicators, and data sources. Importantly, these declines extend beyond qualitative social connections outcomes. Young people also experienced the steepest drop in daily in-person interaction with friends, from 53% in 2006 to 44% in 2015, and 36% by 2022. Unlike all other age groups, they did not offset this decline through remote contact: daily communication with friends via text or social media among people aged 16 to 24 remained relatively stable in the medium-term – 64.5% in 2015 and 63.4% in 2022 (see Chapter 4) – in comparison to all other age groups, who saw increases in text and social media communication over this time.

These results beg the question as to whether the confluence of age and gender may be at the root of new trends in social connection. Large sample sizes available for European OECD countries allow for disaggregation by both gender and age. Growing deprivations in social connections outcomes in the short-term among young people are indeed partly driven by changing outcomes for younger and middle-aged men: those aged 16 to 24 experienced the largest deteriorations, however those aged 25 to 49 also consistently experienced significant worsening of outcomes. For example, young men aged 16 to 24 experienced a 1.1 pp increase in feelings of loneliness between 2018 and 2022 (from 2.7% to 3.8%) – the largest of any age/gender group – while men aged 25 to 49 saw a 0.5 pp increase (from 3.8% to 4.3%): smaller in magnitude, but still significant (Figure 1.6, Panel A).

These results extend beyond loneliness: the youngest male age cohort experienced a significant increase in relationship dissatisfaction between 2018 and 2022 (from 2.3% to 3.6%), and men aged 24 to 49 also experienced an increase in relationship dissatisfaction during this time (0.5 pp deterioration, from 3.7% to 4.2%) (Figure 1.6, Panel C). In terms of the frequency of social interactions, both young men and women experienced the largest declines in daily in-person contact with friends between 2015 and 2022, of all age groups. Young women reported a 7.4 percentage point decline (from 41% to 34%), and young men a 9.0 pp fall (from 46% to 37%); however, across three of four age groups (excepting the 65+ age cohort), the decline for men was slightly larger than that of women (Figure 1.6, Panel D). These findings align with other OECD reporting on deteriorating outcomes for men and young people, in terms of non-material aspects of well-being such as life satisfaction, and feelings of worry and pain (OECD, 2024[7]). On the whole, this suggests worrying trends for younger men that necessitate further investigation to better understand the causes, and potential solutions.

However, this is not to suggest that young women are not vulnerable to feelings of loneliness: women aged 16 to 24 continue to have higher overall rates of feeling lonely than young men (4.9% for young women vs. 3.8% for young men in 2022), and experienced larger declines in never feeling lonely between 2018 and 2022 (a 15 percentage point drop, from 59.5% to 44.4%, compared to a 12 pp decline for young men) (Figure 1.6, Panel B).

Figure 1.5. Population groups with historically better social connections outcomes – including men and especially young people – have seen recent deteriorations
Copy link to Figure 1.5. Population groups with historically better social connections outcomes – including men and especially young people – have seen recent deteriorations

Figure 1.6. Many – though not all – of the recent worsening outcomes for young people are driven by younger men
Copy link to Figure 1.6. Many – though not all – of the recent worsening outcomes for young people are driven by younger men

Socio-economic disadvantage, old age and living alone often go hand-in-hand with deprivations in social connectedness

Different societal groups are significantly more likely to experience isolation and disconnection based on their behaviours and life circumstances (Figure 1.7). For example, the unemployed are more than twice as likely to have felt lonely over the past four weeks compared to the overall population (12% vs. 6%). Research suggests this relationship is bidirectional (Morrish and Medina-Lara, 2021[78]; Barjaková, Garnero and d’Hombres, 2023[79]; Morrish, Mujica-Mota and Medina-Lara, 2022[37]; Üniversity et al., 2025[80]): losing one’s job can lead to fewer social interactions, and a loss of a sense of meaning and/or community, all of which contribute to feelings of loneliness. On the other hand, loneliness can lead to worse mental health outcomes, including depression, which itself influences future employment outcomes (Box 1.4).

Box 1.4. Towards a better understanding of the drivers of (dis)connection

Copy link to Box 1.4. Towards a better understanding of the drivers of (dis)connection

While controlling for common confounders and in some cases using longitudinal designs, much of the evidence on the drivers of social connections, loneliness and isolation is correlational or associative, meaning that researchers do not yet have a complete understanding of the causal pathways that underpin these relationships. As is described throughout this report, some relationships appear to be bidirectional, with causal mechanisms acting in both directions, simultaneously. One example is the interaction between loneliness and unemployment: becoming unemployed leads to less time socialising and a loss of community, both of which can contribute to loneliness, while conversely, loneliness is associated with worse mental health outcomes, which is then demonstrated to affect future employment opportunities.

Improved measurement practice is one way to aid researchers in better understanding the dynamics of these relationships, including the relative importance of different causal pathways and which are the most promising (and cost-effective) candidates for effective policy intervention. More longitudinal data collection of social connections outcomes, in particular, will provide a robust evidence base from which causal studies can be designed. Furthermore, high-quality measurement and monitoring of prospective policy interventions to promote connection and alleviate loneliness and isolation – for example, through rigorous impact evaluation methodologies including randomised control trials – can also assist in improving our understanding of how (dis)connection shapes well-being, and vice versa.

Similarly, people in the bottom income quintile are 2.2 times more likely to feel lonely (13% vs. 6%), 1.4 times more likely to report having no one to count on in times of need (14% vs. 10%) and 1.7 times more likely to feel dissatisfied with their personal relationships (7% vs. 4%), in comparison to the overall population. Existing research has found a negative association between income and poor social connections outcomes, but is less clear on the mechanisms behind this relationship – in part, perhaps, because financial status is often used as a control variable rather than as the direct focus of research itself (Barjaková, Garnero and d’Hombres, 2023[79]). Some studies highlight the fact that those with lower incomes, or recent experiences of financial stress, have fewer resources to support social leisure activities (Klinenberg, 2016[81]; WHO, 2025[1]). Others note that poverty is related to poor health (Macdonald, Nixon and Deacon, 2018[82]), which itself influences social connections outcomes (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015[13]); furthermore, married couples tend to have higher joint household incomes, and being in a relationship and/or living with others is also associated with better outcomes (Hawkley et al., 2008[83]).

Older adults and individuals living alone also face elevated risks. Among those aged 65 years and over, 11% report never meeting friends in person in an average year, more than double the rate for the overall population (5%). This likely reflects a diminishing social circle and increasing mobility issues that come with age (Wrzus et al., 2013[84]; Sander, Schupp and Richter, 2017[85]). People who live alone are also 2.4 times more likely to feel lonely than the general population (14% vs. 6%). This may not necessarily be unexpected, but is concerning given the growing number of single-person households in many OECD countries, and the high share of older people who live alone. Data from Eurostat’s Labour Force Survey finds that across all EU countries, the share of single adult, no children households had risen by 21% since 2013, the highest increase of any household type (Eurostat, 2024[86]). Furthermore, data from the OECD’s Affordable Housing Database shows that the share of the population living alone in 30 OECD countries – including non-EU regions – has risen since 2010, with almost one third (31%) of the population aged 65 and over living alone, and just over 1 in 10 of those 15 to 29 doing so (see Chapter 3). OECD analysis suggests that the share of single-occupancy households is only likely to increase in the coming decades, due in part to rapid population ageing (OECD, 2024[87]).

Figure 1.7. Those with socio-economic disadvantage are more likely to experience worse social connections outcomes, as are the elderly and those who live alone
Copy link to Figure 1.7. Those with socio-economic disadvantage are more likely to experience worse social connections outcomes, as are the elderly and those who live alone

Ratio of social connections outcomes for different population groups compared to population outcomes, OECD average, 2022 or latest available year

While the drivers of social connections are complex, they are partly structural and can be addressed by policy

Measures of outcomes on their own are insufficient to design well-tailored interventions that address loneliness and isolation, or to ensure that existing policies do not inadvertently cause harm to people’s connections. To do so, it is essential to understand the drivers of loneliness, isolation and poor-quality relationships, as well as the upstream factors that support a thriving social life. The growing number of OECD government policy initiatives to address loneliness and isolation, described above, include many examples of multi-sectoral, community-level programmes and interventions: a reflection of the complex socio-economic, environmental and structural factors that shape (dis)connection.

The drivers of social connections are interrelated and often bidirectional in nature – that is, the factors that can influence loneliness, on which the majority of research thus far has focused, may themselves be simultaneously affected by loneliness (refer again to Box 1.4). For example, reduced connection to others is both a risk factor for the onset of poor mental health outcomes, as well as a of symptom mental ill-health (OECD, 2023[88]; Saeri et al., 2018[89]). Similarly, smaller social networks can worsen labour market outcomes (Lin, 1999[90]), while unemployment may lead to a diminished social network and feelings of exclusion (Kunze and Suppa, 2017[91]; Pohlan, 2019[92]). This complexity makes it difficult to identify the causal pathways that underpin these relationships, particularly in the absence of longitudinal data (Schnepf, d’Hombres and Mauri, 2024[2]). However, importantly, drivers are not solely determined by personality traits or genetics (Lim, Eres and Vasan, 2020[3]), but rather are also affected by policy choices – whether intentional or not – that inform an individual’s socio-economic status, the discriminatory barriers they may or may not face, the make-up of their local environment, and their ability to access services and socially mix with others in their community who may or may not share similar characteristics.

Structural and socio-economic factors such as income and employment are highly correlated with social connections outcomes. As shown in Figure 1.7, people in socio-economically disadvantaged groups experience much higher levels of loneliness and social disconnection. Indeed, research shows that financial instability and lack of financial resources are associated with reduced opportunities for social participation and can contribute to compounded health issues (which themselves influence isolation and loneliness) (Schnepf, d’Hombres and Mauri, 2024_[31]). Unemployment has also been shown to be associated with a reduction in the size of one’s social network and heightened feelings of exclusion (Kunze and Suppa, 2017[91]; Pohlan, 2019[92]). At the societal level, some evidence also suggests that countries with higher levels of income inequality are more likely to have higher loneliness prevalence (Tapia-Muñoz et al., 2022[93]): in societies with more material inequality, the salience of one’s relative deprivation is increased, which has psychological impacts (Marmot et al., 2010[94]; Marmot, 2020[95]). Furthermore, those experiencing poverty in more unequal societies are more vulnerable to lack of social integration and community support, having fewer comparative financial resources to participate in an active and fulfilling social life (Tapia-Muñoz et al., 2022[93]; WHO, 2014[96]). People with migrant backgrounds face elevated risks for loneliness, including second-generation migrants, who may experience a weaker sense of belonging due to cultural differences, language barriers, feelings of discrimination or the size of a local network relative to a transnational network (van Cluysen and van Craen, 2011[97]; Koelet and de Valk, 2016[98]; Eralba and Barbiano Di Belgiojoso, 2021[99]). Research into social connections outcomes for ethnic and racial minorities reveals similar experiences. For example, a study by the British Red Cross found that ethnic minority groups have higher levels of loneliness and social isolation, in part because of overlapping deprivations including poverty, worse health outcomes and language barriers (Kennedy, Field and Barker, 2019[100]). However, context matters: for example, in New Zealand, evidence from the 2021 General Social Survey showed that Māori and Pacific peoples reported higher levels of family support than the general population, potentially reflecting the prioritisation of collective well-being and shared responsibilities (Stats NZ, 2022[101]). These, and other examples, are discussed at greater length in Chapter 3.

Beyond socio-demographics, an individual’s housing situation, the built environment and access to services also influence social connections and belonging to a place (OECD, 2023[102]). A systematic review reveals that inadequate (public) transport is associated with loneliness and isolation, particularly – though not exclusively – for those living in remote and underserved areas (Williams et al., 2024[103]; OECD, 2023[102]). In these contexts, community transport services can play a vital role in reducing social isolation, for instance for older adults in rural areas (Hagan, 2020[104]). In more car-dependent countries, such as the United States, older adults may continue driving despite health risks, fearing that giving up driving will harm social connectedness. Evidence from Canada, Ireland and Japan confirms that driving cessation is indeed associated with reduced social participation, while access to alternative public transport can mitigate these effects (Williams et al., 2024[103]) (Matsuda et al., 2019[105]). In the Netherlands, frequent cycling is positively associated with social interaction, possibly due to increased chances of spontaneous encounters compared to driving (Weijs-Perrée et al., 2015[106]).

Much of the thus far limited evidence on which policies work best to improve social connections are focused on interventions tailored to the individual, however the built environment – and more specifically, physical spaces within the built environment where people are free to come and go and interact with one another informally – play a key role in shaping social connections. As such, interventions targeted at the community level are promising, and merit greater policy attention. Community spaces that encourage connection can include libraries, playgrounds and parks (public institutions); places of worship or civic associations (community organisations); or commercial establishments that encourage socialising, such as cafes, barbershops and bookstores. This so-called social infrastructure, also referred to as third places, plays an important role in facilitating interactions among different social groups, and encouraging the building of relationships (Oldenburg and Christensen, 2023[107]; Klinenberg, 2019[108]).

A better understanding of how policy can support the development of social infrastructure and increase its accessibility to a broader range of population groups (including via financial support), will be an important step in developing programmes to improve social connections at the community level. Some OECD countries are already active in this regard. For example, as a part of its Strategy Against Loneliness, the German government has established inter-generational homes and community meeting spaces in part to reach out to low-income elderly people at risk for isolation (BMFSFJ, 2022[61]; BMFSFJ, 2022[62]); in Aragon, Spain the local government has developed an initiative to target undesired loneliness among the elderly, especially those in more rural areas who may struggle to access services, by creating communal spaces to encourage connection while building necessarily skills (i.e., digital literacy) (OGP, 2024[109]); the Lithuanian government has developed a range of programmes designed to facilitate the social integration of the elderly, especially those who live in remote areas and lack digital skills, including a social prescribing initiative that connects seniors to free local cultural, wellness and (non-formal) education activities (Lietuvos Respublikos sveikatos apsaugos ministerija, 2025[110]); and in Paris, the Mayor’s Office has developed a list of recommended third places to encourage residents and visitors alike to frequent off-the-beaten track destinations that encourage interactions with others (Ville de Paris, 2023[111]). Sub-national and local initiatives – such as the République des Hypervoisins effort to build hyperlocal community belonging in the 14th arrondissement of Paris (helloasso, 2025[112]), and the borough of Camden’s community activity guide to local community activities, events, social groups and resources to meet new people (The London Borough of Camden, 2025[113]) – also show promise. These types of programmes and interventions may be particularly important in the context of shifting demographics whereby more people live alone and rely on out-of-home interactions, or proactive social invitations to one’s own home, to sustain an active social life. Metrics on social infrastructure availability and quality are not yet well developed, and a greater statistical focus on this topic could provide policymakers with key evidence to support needed programmes (see Chapter 5 for an extended discussion).

In light of worsening outcomes for young people, there is growing concern among policymakers, parents and teachers about the role of digital technologies, particularly social media, in shaping modern social connections (see Chapter 5 for an extended discussion). Additionally, declining trends in getting together with friends and family in person, and rising trends in regular remote contact (see Chapter 4), necessitate a better understanding of the broader well-being impacts of moving socialising online.

The available evidence is thus far mixed: some research suggests that online interactions displace real-world socialising (Kraut et al., 1998[114]; Dienlin, Masur and Trepte, 2017[115]), to the detriment of broader well-being (Twenge, 2019[116]; Turkle, 2015[117]). Online communication differs in important ways from in-person conversation (Lieberman and Schroeder, 2020[118]; OECD, 2024[119]), and particularly for younger people, some researchers posit that an over-reliance on the former may lead to poorer social skills, withdrawal and increasing isolation and loneliness (Haidt, 2024[120]). The online space also presents its own unique risks for social connectedness, including cyberbullying and algorithm-driven echo chambers (OECD, 2024[121]; OECD, 2025[122]; Kitchens, Johnson and Gray, 2020[123]). However, other strands of research highlight the benefits of digital technology: rather than displacing off-line engagement, digital platforms can help sustain relationships across distance and time, especially for marginalised groups such as LGBTI youth, who may lack offline support (Masur, 2021[124]; Dienlin, Masur and Trepte, 2017[115]; Valkenburg and Peter, 2007[125]; Cui, 2016[126]; Eickers, 2024[127]). The lack of academic consensus is partly due to limited longitudinal data. However, it also reflects that not all digital use is equal: the type and purpose of engagement matter (OECD, 2025[122]; Uhls et al., 2025[128]). Passive browsing or video watching is more strongly associated with negative outcomes, while active communication – chatting, commenting, sharing – can foster connection (Schnepf, d’Hombres and Mauri, 2024[2]; Uhls et al., 2025[128]; Frison and Eggermont, 2020[129]). This shows the need for better tailored, more nuanced measurement approaches to digital technology use and its impact on online and offline social connections.

While research into the causes of loneliness and isolation continues to evolve, policymakers, parents and educators are already taking action. Several countries have introduced legislation to restrict access to social media or smartphones, particularly in schools (see Chapter 5). More systematic evaluations of these initiatives should accompany their roll out to enable a better understanding of how they can be effectively designed, implemented and enforced. A key consideration of policy design is a discussion of which outcomes will be affected by each initiative: in addition to the existing focus on cognition, attention and learning outcomes, outcomes relating to the quantity and quality of social connections should also be included.

References

[19] AGE Platform Europe (2023), Proposal for national strategy against loneliness in Denmark - AGE Platform Europe, https://www.age-platform.eu/proposal-for-national-strategy-against-loneliness-in-denmark/.

[24] Akhter-Khan, S. et al. (2021), “Associations of loneliness with risk of Alzheimer’s disease dementia in the Framingham Heart Study”, Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association, Vol. 17/10, pp. 1619-1627, https://doi.org/10.1002/ALZ.12327.

[54] Aldrich, D. and M. Meyer (2014), “Social capital and community resilience”, https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550299, Vol. 59/2, pp. 254-269, https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550299.

[29] Alm, S., S. Låftman and H. Bohman (2019), “Poor family relationships in adolescence and the risk of premature death: Findings from the Stockholm Birth Cohort Study”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2019, Vol. 16, Page 1690, Vol. 16/10, p. 1690, https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH16101690.

[34] Amati, V. et al. (2018), “Social relations and life satisfaction: The role of friends”, Genus, Vol. 74/1, pp. 1-18, https://doi.org/10.1186/S41118-018-0032-Z/TABLES/3.

[60] Asahi Shimbun (2024), “Law enacted to battle growing problem of loneliness”, The Asahi Shimbun, https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15217563.

[79] Barjaková, M., A. Garnero and B. d’Hombres (2023), “Risk factors for loneliness: A literature review”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 334, p. 116163, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116163.

[62] BMFSFJ (2022), Gemeinsame Strategie gegen Einsamkeit entwickeln, Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth, https://www.bmfsfj.de/bmfsfj/aktuelles/alle-meldungen/gemeinsame-strategie-gegen-einsamkeit-entwickeln-198694.

[61] BMFSFJ (2022), Strategie gegen Einsamkeit, Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth, https://www.bmfsfj.de/bmfsfj/themen/engagement-und-gesellschaft/strategie-gegen-einsamkeit-201642.

[70] BMYK (2024), Davranışsal Bağımlılıklar İle Mücadele Ulusal Strateji Belgesi Ve Eylem Planı (2024 - 2028), Bağımlılıkla Mücadele Yüksek Kurulu (BMYK), https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/depo/Yayinlarimiz/Eylem_Planlari/DBM_EYLEM_PLANI_2024-2028.pdf.

[40] Bowers, A. et al. (2022), “Loneliness influences avoidable absenteeism and turnover intention reported by adult workers in the United States”, Journal of Organizational Effectiveness, Vol. 9/2, pp. 312-335, https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-03-2021-0076/FULL/PDF.

[32] Cacioppo, J. et al. (2011), “Social isolation”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1231/1, pp. 17-22, https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1749-6632.2011.06028.X.

[47] Calvó-Armengol, A. and M. Jackson (2004), “The effects of social networks on employment and inequality”, American Economic Review, Vol. 94/3, pp. 426-454, https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828041464542.

[67] Caritas (2025), Caritas klauso | Lietuvos Caritas, https://www.caritas.lt/page/caritas-klauso.

[17] CDC (2023), Health Risks of Social Isolation and Loneliness, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/emotional-wellbeing/social-connectedness/loneliness.htm.

[49] Chetty, R. et al. (2022), “Social capital I: Measurement and associations with economic mobility”, Nature, Vol. 608/7921, pp. 108-121, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04996-4.

[50] Chetty, R. et al. (2022), “Social capital II: Determinants of economic connectedness”, Nature, Vol. 608/7921, p. 122, https://doi.org/10.1038/S41586-022-04997-3.

[16] Cigna (2020), Loneliness and Its Impact on the American Workplace: Understanding the drivers of workplace loneliness, the costs and the solutions, Cigna, https://legacy.cigna.com/static/www-cigna-com/docs/about-us/newsroom/studies-and-reports/combatting-loneliness/loneliness-and-its-impact-on-the-american-workplace.pdf.

[31] Cruwys, T. et al. (2013), “Social group memberships protect against future depression, alleviate depression symptoms and prevent depression relapse”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 98, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2013.09.013.

[126] Cui, D. (2016), “Beyond “connected presence”: Multimedia mobile instant messaging in close relationship management”, Mobile Media and Communication, Vol. 4/1, pp. 19-36, https://doi.org/10.1177/205015791558392.

[4] Dahlberg, L. et al. (2022), “A systematic review of longitudinal risk factors for loneliness in older adults”, Aging & Mental Health, Vol. 26/2, pp. 225-249, https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2021.1876638.

[11] Danvers, A. et al. (2023), “Loneliness and time alone in everyday life: A descriptive-exploratory study of subjective and objective social isolation”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 107, p. 104426, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JRP.2023.104426.

[115] Dienlin, T., P. Masur and S. Trepte (2017), “Reinforcement or Displacement? The Reciprocity of FtF, IM, and SNS Communication and Their Effects on Loneliness and Life Satisfaction”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 22/2, pp. 71-87, https://doi.org/10.1111/JCC4.12183.

[46] Dwyer, A. and A. Cummings (2001), “Stress, self-efficacy, social support, and coping strategies in university students”, Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, Vol. 35/3, https://cjc-rcc.ucalgary.ca/article/view/58672.

[127] Eickers, G. (2024), “Social media experiences of LGBTQ+ people: Enabling feelings of belonging”, Topoi, Vol. 43/3, pp. 617-630, https://doi.org/10.1007/S11245-023-09994-3/.

[23] Engel, L. et al. (2025), “An updated systematic literature review of the economic costs of loneliness and social isolation and the cost effectiveness of interventions”, PharmacoEconomics, Vol. 43/9, https://doi.org/10.1007/S40273-025-01516-W.

[68] EPE (2022), La soledad como cuestión de Estado: El Gobierno ultima un plan para atajar el aislamiento de los más vulnerables, El Periódico de España, https://www.epe.es/es/sociedad/20221207/soledad-cuestion-gobierno-ultima-plan-aislamiento-vulnerables-79574239.

[99] Eralba, C. and E. Barbiano Di Belgiojoso (2021), “Loneliness among migrants in Italy: Risks and protectors”, Migration Letters, Vol. 18/6, pp. 637-648, https://doi.org/10.59670/ml.v18i6.1330 (accessed on 9 March 2025).

[72] European Commission (2022), Loneliness in the European Union, https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/projects-activities/loneliness-european-union_en.

[86] Eurostat (2024), Household composition statistics, Statistics Explained, https://web.archive.org/web/20250515183420/https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Household_composition_statistics#Source_data_for_tables_and_graphs.

[15] Eurostat (n.d.), European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) – Scientific Use File (SUF) (database), https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/microdata/european-union-statistics-on-income-and-living-conditions.

[66] Folkhälsomyndigheten (2025), Standing together – A national strategy to tackle loneliness, Folkhälsomyndigheten, https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/publikationer-och-material/publikationsarkiv/s/standing-together-a-national-strategy-to-tackle-loneliness/.

[27] Freak-Poli, R. et al. (2021), “Social isolation, social support and loneliness as predictors of cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality”, BMC Geriatrics, Vol. 21/1, pp. 1-14, https://doi.org/10.1186/S12877-021-02602-2/.

[129] Frison, E. and S. Eggermont (2020), “Toward an integrated and differential approach to the relationships between loneliness, different types of Facebook use, and adolescents’ depressed mood”, Communication Research, Vol. 47/5, pp. 701-728, https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502156175.

[76] Gallup (n.d.), Gallup World Poll, https://www.gallup.com/analytics/318875/global-research.aspx.

[104] Hagan, R. (2020), “Getting out of the house: the use of community transport as a third place for rural-dwelling older adults”, Ageing and Society, Vol. 40/11, pp. 2519-2539, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X19000722.

[120] Haidt, J. (2024), The Anxious Generation: How the great rewiring of childhood is causing an epidemic of mental illness, Penguin Press, https://www.anxiousgeneration.com/book.

[20] Hamilton, B. (2023), “Finding a place for Denmark’s estimated 600,000 lonely people to belong”, The Copenhagen Post, https://cphpost.dk/2023-06-21/news/finding-a-place-for-denmarks-estimated-600000-lonely-people-to-belong/.

[33] Hansen, L. et al. (2017), “Associations between the structural and functional aspects of social relations and poor mental health: A cross-sectional register study”, BMC Public Health, Vol. 17/1, pp. 1-10, https://doi.org/10.1186/S12889-017-4871-X/FIGURES/4.

[51] Harris, T. et al. (2025), Social capital in the United Kingdom: Evidence from six billion friendships, Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), https://doi.org/10.31235/OSF.IO/KB7DY_V1.

[83] Hawkley, L. et al. (2008), “From social structural factors to perceptions of relationship quality and loneliness: The Chicago Health, Aging, and Social Relations Study”, The Journals of Gerontology, Vol. 63/6, pp. S375-S384, https://doi.org/10.1093/GERONB/63.6.S375.

[75] Health Policy Watch (2025), WHO Member States Recognize Social Connection As A Global Health Priority, https://healthpolicy-watch.news/who-member-states-recognize-social-connection-as-a-global-health-priority/.

[112] helloasso (2025), La République des Hypervoisins, https://www.helloasso.com/associations/la-republique-des-hyper-voisins (accessed on 17 September 2025).

[71] Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet (2025), Nasjonal livskvalitetsstrategi Fra måling til politikkutforming 2025–2030, Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet, https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nasjonal-livskvalitetsstrategi/id3111081/.

[44] Holahan, C., D. Valentiner and R. Moos (1995), “Parental support, coping strategies, and psychological adjustment: An integrative model with late adolescents”, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 24/6, pp. 633-648, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01536948.

[14] Holt-Lunstad, J. (2025), “Social connection or loneliness? How we frame the issue may significantly impact public policy”, Health Psychology, Vol. 44/5, pp. 560-562, https://doi.org/10.1037/HEA0001433.

[8] Holt-Lunstad, J., T. Robles and D. Sbarra (2017), “Advancing social connection as a public health priority in the United States”, The American Psychologist, Vol. 72/6, p. 517, https://doi.org/10.1037/AMP0000103.

[12] Holt-Lunstad, J. and T. Smith (2016), “Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for CVD: Implications for evidence-based patient care and scientific inquiry”, Heart, Vol. 102/13, p. 987, https://doi.org/10.1136/HEARTJNL-2015-309242.

[13] Holt-Lunstad, J. et al. (2015), “Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 10/2, pp. 227-237, https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352.

[28] Holwerda, T. et al. (2014), “Feelings of loneliness, but not social isolation, predict dementia onset: Results from the Amsterdam Study of the Elderly (AMSTEL)”, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, Vol. 85/2, pp. 135-142, https://doi.org/10.1136/JNNP-2012-302755.

[9] Huxhold, O., B. Suanet and M. Wetzel (2022), “Perceived social exclusion and loneliness: Two distinct but related phenomena”, Sociological Science, Vol. 9/17, https://doi.org/10.15195/v9.a17.

[100] Kennedy, L., O. Field and K. Barker (2019), Barriers to belonging: An exploration of loneliness among people from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic backgrounds, British Red Cross, https://www.redcross.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/we-speak-up-for-change/barriers-to-belonging.

[123] Kitchens, B., S. Johnson and P. Gray (2020), “Understanding echo chambers and filter bubbles: The impact of social media on diversification and partisan shifts in news consumption”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 44/4, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343822214_Understanding_Echo_Chambers_and_Filter_Bubbles_The_Impact_of_Social_Media_on_Diversification_and_Partisan_Shifts_in_News_Consumption.

[108] Klinenberg, E. (2019), Palaces for the People: How social infrastructure can help fight inequality, polarization, and the decline of civic life, Penguin Random House, https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/557044/palaces-for-the-people-by-eric-klinenberg/.

[81] Klinenberg, E. (2016), “Social Isolation, Loneliness, and Living Alone: Identifying the Risks for Public Health”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 106/5, p. 786, https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303166.

[98] Koelet, S. and H. de Valk (2016), “Social networks and feelings of social loneliness after migration: The case of European migrants with a native partner in Belgium”, Ethnicities, Vol. 16/4, pp. 610-630, https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796816638398/.

[133] Korea Ministry of Government Legislation (2025), 고독사·독거사·무연고사 등, https://easylaw.go.kr/CSP/CnpClsMain.laf?popMenu=ov&csmSeq=1697&ccfNo=3&cciNo=1&cnpClsNo=1.

[22] Korea Youth Foundation (2023), Social Isolation among Young Adults, Korea Youth Foundation, https://kyf.or.kr/eng/user/content.do?pageId=PAGE_000000000000059.

[114] Kraut, R. et al. (1998), “Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?”, American Psychologist, Vol. 53/9, pp. 1017-1031, https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.53.9.1017.

[65] Kunta Liitto (2024), Kuntaliitto mukana osallisuuden vahvistamisen ja yksinäisyyden vähentämisen ohjelmassa, Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities, https://www.kuntaliitto.fi/ajankohtaista/2024/kuntaliitto-mukana-osallisuuden-vahvistamisen-ja-yksinaisyyden-vahentamisen.

[91] Kunze, L. and N. Suppa (2017), “Bowling alone or bowling at all? The effect of unemployment on social participation”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 133, pp. 213-235, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JEBO.2016.11.012.

[118] Lieberman, A. and J. Schroeder (2020), “Two social lives: How differences between online and offline interaction influence social outcomes”, Current Opinion in Psychology, Vol. 31, pp. 16-21, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COPSYC.2019.06.022.

[110] Lietuvos Respublikos sveikatos apsaugos ministerija (2025), Socialinis Receptas, https://pagalbasau.lt/socialinis-receptas/.

[3] Lim, M., R. Eres and S. Vasan (2020), “Understanding loneliness in the twenty-first century: an update on correlates, risk factors, and potential solutions”, Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, Vol. 55/7, pp. 793-810, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-020-01889-7.

[90] Lin, N. (1999), “Social networks and status attainment”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 25/Volume 25, 1999, pp. 467-487, https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV.SOC.25.1.467/.

[42] Lleras-Muney, A. et al. (2020), “Party on: The labor market returns to social networks and socializing”, NBER Working Paper Series, Vol. Working Paper 27337, https://doi.org/10.3386/W27337.

[57] Local Government Association (2018), Combating loneliness: A guide for local authorities, https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/combating-loneliness-guid-24e_march_2018.pdf.

[82] Macdonald, S., J. Nixon and L. Deacon (2018), “‘Loneliness in the city’: Examining socio-economics, loneliness and poor health in the North East of England”, Public Health, Vol. 165, pp. 88-94, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PUHE.2018.09.003.

[134] MacIsaac, S. and G. Schellenberg (2025), Unity in Canada: Experimental measures of feelings towards people with similar or different views, Statistics Canada, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/36-28-0001/2025005/article/00004-eng.htm.

[39] Maher, B. et al. (2013), “Medical school attrition-beyond the statistics: A ten year retrospective study”, BMC Medical Education, Vol. 13/1, p. 13, https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-13/.

[5] Mahoney, J. et al. (2024), “Measuring social connectedness in OECD countries: A scoping review”, OECD Papers on Well-being and Inequalities, No. 28, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f758bd20-en.

[95] Marmot, M. (2020), “Health equity in England: The Marmot review 10 years on”, BMJ, Vol. 368, https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.M693.

[94] Marmot, M. et al. (2010), Fair Society Healthy Lives (The Marmot Review), Institute of Health Equity, https://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/resources-reports/fair-society-healthy-lives-the-marmot-review.

[124] Masur, P. (2021), “Digital Communication Effects on Loneliness and Life Satisfaction”, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication, https://doi.org/10.1093/ACREFORE/9780190228613.013.1129.

[105] Matsuda, N. et al. (2019), “Association between public transportation use and loneliness among urban elderly people who stop driving”, Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, Vol. 5, https://doi.org/10.1177/2333721419851293.

[38] Matthews, T. et al. (2016), “Social isolation, loneliness and depression in young adulthood: A behavioural genetic analysis”, Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, Vol. 51/3, pp. 339-348, https://doi.org/10.1007/S00127-016-1178-7/.

[58] Ministry of Health Welfare and Sport (2023), Organogram of the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport: Directorate-General for Long-Term Care, Government of the Netherlands, https://www.government.nl/ministries/ministry-of-health-welfare-and-sport/organisation/dg-long-term-care.

[48] Montgomery, J. (1991), “Social networks and labor-market outcomes: Toward an economic analysis”, American Economic Review, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2006929.

[78] Morrish, N. and A. Medina-Lara (2021), “Does unemployment lead to greater levels of loneliness? A systematic review”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 287, p. 114339, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2021.114339.

[37] Morrish, N., R. Mujica-Mota and A. Medina-Lara (2022), “Understanding the effect of loneliness on unemployment: Propensity score matching”, BMC Public Health, Vol. 22/1, pp. 1-15, https://doi.org/10.1186/S12889-022-13107-X/.

[55] Neu, C. et al. (2023), Extrem einsam? Eine Studie zur demokratischen Relevanz von Einsamkeitserfahrungen unter Jugendlichen in Deutschland, Das Progressive Zentrum, https://www.progressives-zentrum.org/publication/extrem-einsam/.

[21] New Economics Foundation (2017), The Cost of Loneliness to UK Employers, https://www.campaigntoendloneliness.org/wp-content/uploads/cost-of-loneliness-2017.pdf.

[69] NIJZ (2020), MIRA for mental health – National Mental Health Programme, https://nijz.si/en/publications/mira-for-mental-health-national-mental-health-programme/.

[122] OECD (2025), How’s Life for Children in the Digital Age?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0854b900-en.

[7] OECD (2024), How’s Life? 2024: Well-being and Resilience in Times of Crisis, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/90ba854a-en.

[119] OECD (2024), OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2024 (Volume 1): Embracing the Technology Frontier, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a1689dc5-en.

[87] OECD (2024), Society at a Glance 2024: OECD Social Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/918d8db3-en.

[121] OECD (2024), “Towards digital safety by design for children”, OECD Digital Economy Papers 363, https://doi.org/10.1787/c167b650-en.

[102] OECD (2023), Built Environment through a Well-being Lens, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1b5bebf4-en.

[6] OECD (2023), Economic Policy Making to Pursue Economic Welfare: Report Prepared for the 2023 Japan Presidency of the G7, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ccc5634c-en (accessed on 3 May 2023).

[88] OECD (2023), How to Make Societies Thrive? Coordinating Approaches to Promote Well-being and Mental Health, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/fc6b9844-en.

[131] OECD (2023), Measuring Population Mental Health, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5171eef8-en.

[132] OECD (2023), Promoting Active Ageing in Lithuania: Policy Challenges and Solutions, Ageing and Employment Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2b4d4cfd-en.

[130] OECD (2013), OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264191655-en.

[109] OGP (2024), Supporting older persons through participatory and innovative measures, Open Government Partnership, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/members/aragon-spain/commitments/ESARG0004/.

[107] Oldenburg, R. and K. Christensen (2023), Third Places, True Citizen Spaces, The UNESCO Courier, https://courier.unesco.org/en/articles/third-places-true-citizen-spaces.

[135] Paris, B. et al. (2024), “Evaluating Loneliness Measurements across the European Union”, PsyArXiv Preprints, https://doi.org/10.31234/OSF.IO/TK68S.

[41] Patel, A. and S. Plowman (2022), “The increasing importance of a best friend at work”, Gallup, https://www.gallup.com/workplace/397058/increasing-importance-best-friend-work.aspx.

[25] Penninkilampi, R. et al. (2018), “The association between social engagement, loneliness, and risk of dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, Vol. 66/4, pp. 1619-1633, https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-180439.

[10] Perissinotto, C. and K. Covinsky (2014), “Living alone, socially isolated or lonely—What are we measuring?”, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Vol. 29/11, pp. 1429-1431, https://doi.org/10.1007/S11606-014-2977-8/.

[63] Plattform Gegen Einsamkeit (2021), Nationale Anlaufstelle und Kompetenznetzwerk, https://plattform-gegen-einsamkeit.at/.

[92] Pohlan, L. (2019), “Unemployment and social exclusion”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 164, pp. 273-299, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JEBO.2019.06.006.

[59] Prime Minister of Japan Cabinet Office (2021), Preparatory Meeting of the Collaborative Platform for Loneliness and Isolation Measures, https://japan.kantei.go.jp/99_suga/actions/202109/_00033.html.

[18] Rodríguez, B., B. Castiñeira and E. Rodríguez-Míguez (2023), The Cost of Loneliness in Spain, Observatorio Estatal de la Soledad No Deseada (SoledadES), https://www.soledades.es/sites/default/files/contenidos/Executive%20summary_The%20cost%20of%20loneliness%20in%20Spain.pdf.

[45] Rueger, S., C. Malecki and M. Demaray (2010), “Relationship between multiple sources of perceived social support and psychological and academic adjustment in early adolescence: Comparisons across gender”, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 39/1, pp. 47-61, https://doi.org/10.1007/S10964-008-9368-6/.

[43] Saeed, K. et al. (2023), “How social support predicts academic achievement among secondary students with special needs: The mediating role of self-esteem”, Middle East Current Psychiatry, Vol. 30/1, pp. 1-9, https://doi.org/10.1186/S43045-023-00316-2/.

[89] Saeri, A. et al. (2018), “Social connectedness improves public mental health: Investigating bidirectional relationships in the New Zealand attitudes and values survey”, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 52/4, pp. 365-374, https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867417723990.

[85] Sander, J., J. Schupp and D. Richter (2017), “Getting together: Social contact frequency across the life span”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 53/8, pp. 1571-1588, https://doi.org/10.1037/DEV0000349.

[2] Schnepf, S., B. d’Hombres and C. Mauri (2024), Loneliness in Europe: Determinants, risks and interventions, https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-66582-0.

[64] Seoul Metropolitan Government (2024), “Knock” Anytime When You Feel Lonely: Seoul Becomes a City Where No One Is Lonely, https://english.seoul.go.kr/knock-anytime-when-you-feel-lonely-seoul-becomes-a-city-where-no-one-is-lonely/.

[77] Stats NZ (2024), Wellbeing statistics: 2023, https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/wellbeing-statistics-2023/.

[101] Stats NZ (2022), Wellbeing statistics: 2021, https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/wellbeing-statistics-2021/.

[52] Stuart, B. and E. Taylor (2021), “The effect of social connectedness on crime: Evidence from the Great Migration”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 103/1, p. 18, https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_A_00860.

[93] Tapia-Muñoz, T. et al. (2022), “Income inequality and its relationship with loneliness prevalence: A cross-sectional study among older adults in the US and 16 European countries”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 17/12, p. e0274518, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274518.

[136] The Korea Herald (2024), “Rise in ‘lonely deaths’”, The Korea Herald, https://www.koreaherald.com/article/3844036.

[113] The London Borough of Camden (2025), Connect with your community in Camden - Camden Council, https://www.camden.gov.uk/connect-with-your-community-in-camden (accessed on 17 September 2025).

[53] The U.S. Surgeon General (2023), Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on the Healing Effects of Social Connection and Community, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37792968/.

[35] Tomini, F., S. Tomini and W. Groot (2016), “Understanding the value of social networks in life satisfaction of elderly people: A comparative study of 16 European countries using SHARE data”, BMC Geriatrics, Vol. 16/1, pp. 1-12, https://doi.org/10.1186/S12877-016-0362-7/.

[117] Turkle, S. (2015), Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age, Penguin Press, https://sts-program.mit.edu/book/reclaiming-conversation-power-talk-digital-age/.

[137] TWCF (2025), Towards a Global Index of Social Connection, Templeton World Charity Foundation (TWCF), https://www.templetonworldcharity.org/projects-resources/project-database/32560.

[116] Twenge, J. (2019), “More time on technology, less happiness? Associations between digital-media use and psychological well-being”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 28/4, pp. 372-379, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419838244.

[128] Uhls, Y. et al. (2025), “Adolescents’ Online Communication Practices in a Digital World”, Handbook of Children and Screens: Digital Media, Development, and Well-Being from Birth Through Adolescence, pp. 215-221, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-69362-5_30.

[56] UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (2018), A Connected Society: A Strategy for Tackling Loneliness - Laying the foundations for change, UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-connected-society-a-strategy-for-tackling-loneliness.

[138] UNECE (2025), Guide on Measuring Social Cohesion – Relations Between Groups, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), Geneva, https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2025-05/SocialCohesionGuide%20Rev.pdf.

[80] Üniversity, A. et al. (2025), “Breaking the cycle: Exploring the bidirectional link between loneliness and unemployment”, Journal of Life Economics, Vol. 12/1, pp. e2697-e2697, https://doi.org/10.15637/JLECON.2697.

[139] UNSD (2023), Friends of the Chair Group on Social and Demographic Statistics, United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), https://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/groups/FOCG_SDS/.

[125] Valkenburg, P. and J. Peter (2007), “Online communication and adolescent well-being: Testing the stimulation versus the displacement hypothesis”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 12/4, pp. 1169-1182, https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1083-6101.2007.00368.X.

[26] Valtorta, N. et al. (2016), “Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for coronary heart disease and stroke: Systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observational studies”, Heart (British Cardiac Society), Vol. 102/13, pp. 1009-1016, https://doi.org/10.1136/HEARTJNL-2015-308790.

[97] van Cluysen, K. and M. van Craen (2011), “Feelings of loneliness: Differences between ethnic minority and majority group members in Belgium and their relation to minorities’ integration and ethnic attachment”, in Motmans, J. (ed.), Equal is not enough. Challenging differences and inequalities in contemporary societies, Policy Research Centre on Equal Opportunities, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278966476_Equal_is_not_enough_challenging_differences_and_inequalities_in_contemporary_society_conference_proceedings.

[36] van der Horst, M. and H. Coffé (2012), “How friendship network characteristics influence subjective well-being”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 107/3, pp. 509-529, https://doi.org/10.1007/S11205-011-9861-2/.

[111] Ville de Paris (2023), Et si vous passiez le week-end dans un tiers-lieu, https://www.paris.fr/pages/et-si-vous-passiez-le-week-end-dans-un-tiers-lieu-parisien-24861.

[30] Wang, J. et al. (2018), “Associations between loneliness and perceived social support and outcomes of mental health problems: A systematic review”, BMC Psychiatry, Vol. 18/1, pp. 1-16, https://doi.org/10.1186/S12888-018-1736-5.

[106] Weijs-Perrée, M. et al. (2015), “Factors influencing social satisfaction and loneliness: A path analysis”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 45, pp. 24-31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.04.004.

[74] WHO (2025), Fostering social connection for global health: The essential role of social connection in combating loneliness, social isolation and inequities in health, https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA78/A78_ACONF2-en.pdf.

[1] WHO (2025), From Loneliness to Social Connection: Charting a Path to Healthier Societies, World Health Organization (WHO) Commission on Social Connection, https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/978240112360.

[73] WHO (2023), WHO Commission on Social Connection, https://www.who.int/groups/commission-on-social-connection.

[96] WHO (2014), Social Determinants of Mental Health, World Health Organization, https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/112828/9789241506809_eng.pdf.

[103] Williams, A. et al. (2024), “Systematic review of the associations between transport and loneliness”, in Advances in Transport Policy and Planning, https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.atpp.2023.11.005.

[84] Wrzus, C. et al. (2013), “Social network changes and life events across the life span: A meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 139/1, pp. 53-80, https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2012-13785-001.

Notes

Copy link to Notes

← 1. Furthermore, while one-third of official surveys in OECD countries with social connections indicators are fielded annually, two-thirds are fielded every 2-5 years or irregularly (Mahoney et al., 2024[5]).

← 2. How’s Life? reports include a small set of internationally comparable indicators related to time spent in social interactions, perceived social support and, since 2024, feeling lonely (OECD, 2024[7]).

← 3. In addition to measurement work done at the OECD, there is a growing international community of practice dedicated to harmonising and standardising social connections data. Forthcoming work from a global group of scholars will investigate the statistical properties of different approaches to measuring loneliness across all 27 EU countries; the analysis will focus on the suitability of different measures in terms of their factor structure, reliability and measurement invariance, among other aspects (Paris et al., 2024[135]). A parallel initiative will conduct qualitative research (in-depth interviews and focus groups) across multiple countries to better understand how social connections and loneliness differ across culture, language and region – in terms of how the terms are conceptualised, understood and valued (TWCF, 2025[137]).

This work aims to contribute to the measurement agenda by ensuring that indicators used are broadly applicable to different population groups, beyond the cultural context in which they were initially developed; in this way, cross-country comparisons can be more robust and valid. Previous OECD assessments of the cultural sensitivity of related topics, including subjective well-being and population mental health, have found cultural differences to play some role in explaining variations between countries and demographic groups, but not to the extent that the measures themselves are invalid; that is, they still provide meaningful information about prevalence, especially when longer time trends are available (OECD, 2013[130]; 2023[131]).

International organisations are also actively engaged in social connections measurement work. In addition to the WHO Commission on Social Connection’s forthcoming work on a Global Index on Social Connection (see Box 1.3), the United Nations Friends of the Chair Group on Social and Demographic Statistics (UN-FOCG-SD), which the OECD is contributing to, is developing a multi-level Institutions and Relationships Measurement Framework that conceives of relationships as “building blocks” for social statistics. This approach, mirroring the system of macroeconomic statistics, outlines how social interactions comprehensively shape society as a whole, and comprises the extent, function, quality and impact of relationships across micro-, meso- and macro levels (e.g. people, families, communities, institutions) (UNSD, 2023[139]). Social connections outcomes, such as those presented in this report, are then only one (important) component of these relationship building blocks.

In a separate workstream, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) has published an in-depth review of social cohesion measures in order to better understand the affective distance between different ideological groups (UNECE, 2025[138]). This work was supported by a pilot data collection exercise conducted by Statistics Canada, which included indicators covering respondents’ feelings towards those with similar/different political views, views on racism and views on gender identity (MacIsaac and Schellenberg, 2025[134]).

← 4. Social capital, which refers to the social norms, shared values and institutional arrangements that foster co-operation among population groups, is highly related to the concept of social connectedness, however is captured in a separate domain of the OECD Well-being Framework via indicators measuring trust, volunteering, government stakeholder engagement and corruption (Figure 1.1); it is therefore not the primary focus of this report.

← 5. Weak correlations can also be an artifact of imprecise measurement of latent constructs. In this instance, the academic literature supports evidence distinguishing structural measures of isolation from concepts like loneliness (Huxhold, Suanet and Wetzel, 2022[9]; Perissinotto and Covinsky, 2014[10]; Danvers et al., 2023[11]).

← 6. Countries covered by the studies included in the systematic review include Australia (n=4), Japan (n=1), the Netherlands (n=2), Spain (n=1), the United Kingdom (n=6) and the United States (n=1) (Engel et al., 2025[23]).

← 7. “Lonely deaths” (고독사 / godoksa in Korean) refers to the death of an individual who is socially isolated from family or friends, from illness, suicide or other causes (Korea Ministry of Government Legislation, 2025[133]). Lonely deaths are in part affected by the growing number of single-occupancy households. While the elderly are affected, the most vulnerable groups may be men in their 50s or 60s who have not yet aged into social welfare programmes for the elderly, and are thus out of reach of social welfare systems designed to check in on them, their health and well-being (The Korea Herald, 2024[136]).

← 8. This initiative joins a range of other Lithuanian government-sponsored programmes to support the emotional well-being and social connectedness of the elderly population, including a social prescribing programme (Lietuvos Respublikos sveikatos apsaugos ministerija, 2025[110]) and an inclusive ageing policy (OECD, 2023[132]).

← 9. These results could be, in part, a reflection of aging societies – this concern is partially addressed in later analysis in this report in which outcomes are disaggregated by age group (and age group by gender), to show that in-person socialising has declined most precipitously for young people. Future analysis could take an age-period-cohort modelling approach to test for cohort effects.

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Countries

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Publications

Publications

Featured publications

Data

Data

Featured data

News & events

News & events

Featured events

About OECD

About

Engage with us

Work with us

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment