This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

RCTs - Protocols/Proposals (eHealth) (546) Digital Mental Health Interventions, e-Mental Health and Cyberpsychology (1552) Web-based and Mobile Health Interventions (3345)

Published on in Vol 11, No 7 (2022): July

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/36358, first published .
Evaluating the Efficacy of a Guided and Unguided Internet-Based Self-help Intervention for Chronic Loneliness: Protocol for a 3-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial

Evaluating the Efficacy of a Guided and Unguided Internet-Based Self-help Intervention for Chronic Loneliness: Protocol for a 3-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial

Evaluating the Efficacy of a Guided and Unguided Internet-Based Self-help Intervention for Chronic Loneliness: Protocol for a 3-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial

Authors of this article:

Noëmi Seewer1 Author Orcid Image ;   Andrej Skoko1 Author Orcid Image ;   Anton Käll2, 3 Author Orcid Image ;   Gerhard Andersson2, 4 Author Orcid Image ;   Maike Luhmann5 Author Orcid Image ;   Thomas Berger1 Author Orcid Image ;   Tobias Krieger1 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by (8) Tweetations (4) Metrics

    Protocol

    1Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    2Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

    3Center for Social and Affective Neuroscience, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

    4Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

    5Faculty of Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

    Corresponding Author:

    Noëmi Seewer, MSc

    Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy

    University of Bern

    Fabrikstrasse 8

    Bern, 3012

    Switzerland

    Phone: 41 31 684 40 35

    Email: noemi.seewer@unibe.ch


    Background: Loneliness, or perceived social isolation, is prevalent in both the general population and clinical practice. Although loneliness has repeatedly been associated with mental and physical health, research on interventions that reduce loneliness effectively is still rather scarce.

    Objective: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of a guided and an unguided version of the same internet-based cognitive behavioral self-help program for loneliness (SOLUS-D) for adults.

    Methods: A total of 250 participants will be randomly assigned to 1 of 2 intervention groups (SOLUS-D with guidance or SOLUS-D without guidance) or a wait-list control group (2:2:1 allocation ratio). Adult participants experiencing high levels of loneliness will be recruited from the general population. Individuals currently experiencing at least moderately severe depressive symptoms, an ongoing severe substance use disorder, previous or current bipolar or psychotic disorder, or acute suicidality will be excluded from the trial. Assessments will take place at baseline, 5 weeks (midassessment), and 10 weeks (postassessment). The primary outcome is loneliness assessed using the 9-item University of California, Los Angeles Loneliness Scale at the posttreatment time point. Secondary outcomes include depressive symptoms, symptoms of social anxiety, satisfaction with life, social network size, and variables assessing cognitive bias and social behavior. The maintenance of potentially achieved gains will be assessed and compared at 6 and 12 months after randomization in the 2 active conditions. Potential moderators and mediators will be tested exploratorily. Data will be analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.

    Results: Recruitment and data collection started in May 2021 and are expected to be completed by 2022, with the 12-month follow-up to be completed by 2023. As of the time of submission of the manuscript, 134 participants were randomized.

    Conclusions: This 3-arm randomized controlled trial will add to the existing research on the efficacy of loneliness interventions. Furthermore, it will shed light on the role of human guidance in internet-based treatments for individuals with increased levels of loneliness and the possible mechanisms of change. If SOLUS-D proves effective, it could provide a low-threshold, cost-efficient method of helping and supporting individuals with increased levels of loneliness.

    Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04655196; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04655196

    International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/36358

    JMIR Res Protoc 2022;11(7):e36358

    doi:10.2196/36358

    Keywords

    loneliness; subjective social isolation; internet-based intervention; self-help; guidance; online; mobile phone 


    Background

    Loneliness, or perceived social isolation, is a common phenomenon observed in clinical practice and in the general population. Some authors have even considered it an epidemic phenomenon [1]. Although an increase in the prevalence of loneliness has been observed after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the accompanying social distancing measures [2,3], loneliness was a prevalent phenomenon even before. The prevalence of loneliness varies substantially among European countries [4]. In the general German population, 5% to 10% of individuals frequently experience feelings of loneliness [2,5], and a recent cross-temporal meta-analysis revealed an increase in loneliness in emerging adults over the past 40 years [6]. Within a representative German adult sample, loneliness was prevalent in all age groups, with peaks in young adults (aged approximately 30 years), in adults aged approximately 60 years, and in the oldest adults (≥80 years) [7]. Numerous studies have shown negative physical and mental health consequences associated with loneliness [8], and it is associated with all-cause mortality [9,10]. Consequently, loneliness has recently been increasingly recognized as a public health concern that needs to be addressed, leading to several national initiatives (eg, in the United Kingdom and Japan) to tackle loneliness and objective social isolation on a societal level. Furthermore, attempts have been made to develop and evaluate interventions to reduce loneliness at the individual level. However, evidence on what interventions work and for whom is still limited [11].

    Conceptualizing Loneliness

    Human connection is regarded as a basic psychological need [12]. Consequently, when this need cannot be met, feelings of loneliness may arise. Peplau and Perlman [13] defined loneliness as an aversive subjective experience resulting from a discrepancy between actual and desired social relationships. The quantity and quality of social contact seem to be relevant in this regard [14]. This means that a person can feel lonely despite having many social relationships, whereas another person with only a few meaningful connections may not feel lonely. Therefore, it is essential to distinguish between loneliness (ie, subjective social isolation) and objective social isolation. Although loneliness is often experienced as stressful, perceived control over the frequency with which individuals socialize, and the amount of time spent alone play an important role in whether social isolation, living alone, or being alone is perceived as distressing [7]. Researchers have argued that it is necessary to distinguish between different forms of loneliness in terms of the duration of the experience. For example, Young [15] suggested differentiating among transient, situational, and chronic loneliness. Transient feelings of loneliness are adaptive in motivating individuals to reconnect with others [16] and should not be considered pathological [17], whereas chronic loneliness is a more stable condition expressed as difficulties in engaging in satisfying social relationships. This experience is intrinsically aversive and is associated with a variety of severe consequences for physical and psychological health [18].

    Maintaining Factors of Chronic Loneliness

    According to the evolutionary theory of loneliness [16], transient feelings of loneliness are adaptive by functioning as a signal comparable with hunger or thirst, motivating individuals to reconnect with others to increase the likelihood of survival. However, some people get stuck in a vicious circle that maintains feelings of loneliness, leading to chronic loneliness. Cacioppo et al [16,19] outlined a cognitive model of loneliness. The model indicates that perceived social isolation causes initial social withdrawal, allowing one to observe and evaluate immediate social situations through physical distance [20]. When perceiving oneself as socially isolated, the motive for self-preservation may increase, leading to heightened hypervigilance for potential social threats and attacks [21,22]. Consequently, individuals perceive social stimuli as more threatening, especially when a situation is neutral or ambiguous. In line with this, individuals with increased levels of loneliness have shown a negative bias in several phases of social information processing (see the study by Spithoven et al [23] for an overview). According to Cacioppo and Hawkley [19], counterproductive social behavior, such as social avoidance or preventive rejection of others, is reinforced by biased information processing. Such behavior may help prevent further rejection or attacks but may also hinder behavior that could promote close satisfying social connections. In addition, the results of several studies show that individuals with chronic loneliness may lack social skills, such as authenticity [24] or self-disclosure [25,26], expressing emotions [27], or being compassionate toward others and the self [28], which are important in building close relationships [29-34]. Heightened rejection sensitivity [22] and negative evaluations of others can further foster negative experiences and expectations of social interactions [35]. Hence, a lack of perceived social efficacy, (ie, confidence in the ability to engage in social interactions or initiate and maintain interpersonal relationships) can be reduced in individuals with increased levels of loneliness [22,36,37]. The resulting social behavior hampers the forming of new relationships and the deepening of existing relationships, leading to more negativity and stronger feelings of loneliness. Consequently, negative biases in social situations are further increased, leading to a vicious circle and, therefore, to chronic loneliness.

    Loneliness and Mental Disorders

    Loneliness can be viewed as a transdiagnostic phenomenon [38], which is frequent in various psychological disorders and psychopathological symptoms. For example, it has been found to be associated with depression [39], psychosis [40], suicidal ideation [41,42], and generalized anxiety [5]. Impaired sleep quality and insomnia symptoms have also been repeatedly reported in individuals with increased levels of loneliness [43]. In line with these findings, loneliness is associated with reduced well-being [44]. Owing to the cross-sectional nature of most studies, the causality for the associations between loneliness and mental health problems is often unclear. However, reciprocal relationships have been found for a variety of psychopathological symptoms, such as depressive symptoms and symptoms of social anxiety [45-47]. Therefore, loneliness can be considered a risk and maintaining factor of mental disorders.

    Interventions Against Loneliness

    Loneliness, with its many detrimental effects on health, has led researchers to develop various interventions aiming to alleviate the condition. In general, psychological interventions have been found to reduce loneliness [48]. In an attempt to categorize different approaches, Masi et al [49] identified four groups of interventions that have been studied for loneliness: (1) developing social skills, (2) increasing social support, (3) augmenting opportunities for social interaction, and (4) changing maladaptive social cognitions. Interventions focusing on and changing social cognition were shown to be the most promising approaches compared with other intervention types [49]. A more recent systematic review [11] corroborated these findings by concluding that the most promising individual interventions had focused on cognitive interventions. These results are in line with the abovementioned cognitive model of loneliness, according to which interventions need to address hypervigilance to social threats and related cognitive biases that characterize individuals with increased levels of loneliness [16,19]. Recently, there have been several systematic review updates on interventions against loneliness in older adults in general [50], in individuals with mental health problems [51], and in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [38], with all 3 reviews highlighting the largely unmet need for high-quality research on psychological interventions for loneliness.

    Internet-Based Interventions for Loneliness

    In recent years, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has been applied as internet-delivered CBT (ICBT). Location- and time-independent use, high degree of anonymity and privacy, and low costs because of easy scalability are some of the advantages of ICBT [52]. Although most people are familiar with feelings of loneliness, it often has a negative connotation and is stigmatized [53]. Thus, low-threshold access to interventions may be especially helpful for individuals with increased levels of loneliness in need. In addition, it has been argued that ICBT might especially be accepted by individuals with increased levels of loneliness showing avoidant and withdrawing social behavior [54], as internet-based interventions are associated with diminished anxiety about social interactions with therapists [55].

    Recently, there have been some promising studies on low-threshold internet-based self-help interventions against loneliness. In a pilot RCT, Käll et al [54] compared a guided ICBT with a wait-list control group. Significant reductions in loneliness were found with a between-group effect size (Cohen d) of 0.77 at the postintervention time point [54]. A further decrease in loneliness was observed at the 2-year follow-up [56].

    More evidence for effectively alleviating loneliness by means of ICBT stems from a 3-armed trial comparing 2 active intervention groups (ICBT vs internet-based interpersonal therapy [IIPT]) with a wait-list control group [57]. Loneliness in individuals in the ICBT condition was significantly reduced after the intervention phase, with a moderate to large effect size (Cohen d=0.71) compared with the wait-list and a moderate effect size (Cohen d=0.53) compared with the IIPT group. No significant differences regarding loneliness were observed between the IIPT and wait-list groups [57].

    An unguided, web-based, friendship enrichment program, including 3 coping strategies to tackle loneliness (ie, network development, adapting personal standards, and reducing the importance of the discrepancy between actual and desired relationships), was tested in 239 participants aged 50 to 86 years [58]. This study drew on the definition of loneliness from Peplau and Perlman [13] and suggested that not only increasing opportunities for social contact but also focusing on the discrepancy between actual and desired relationships and expectations for relationships are important in alleviating loneliness. On average, loneliness declined significantly over the course of the study [58]. However, the authors reported high dropout rates, with only 36% of the participants completing all modules of the program [59].

    Although the first studies on ICBT for loneliness have shown promising results, more studies are needed for several reasons. First, the study designs applied in previous trials on ICBT for loneliness [54,57] do not allow controlling for nonspecific effects such as human contact on the outcome. However, guidance (ie, weekly human contact by email) might affect the decrease in loneliness other than through CBT by addressing principles relevant to building meaningful relationships (eg, validation) [54]. Moreover, guidance also yields larger effects when comparing guided and unguided interventions in other application fields of ICBT, such as depression [60]. Thus, it is important to investigate the effect of guidance on outcomes in internet interventions for loneliness. Second, there is a gap in the literature on who can profit from ICBT for loneliness and, for example, whether some people profit more from a guided than from an unguided version. Third, little is known about how interventions for loneliness work, and research is needed to identify mechanisms of change in these interventions and, thereby, improve the understanding of chronic loneliness.

    Objectives

    Given the need for more high-quality RCTs of interventions for alleviating loneliness, this study will be conducted to investigate the following objectives. First, we will test the efficacy of 2 web-based interventions (ICBT with or without guidance) compared with a wait-list control group regarding loneliness (primary outcome) and a range of secondary outcomes (eg, depression, anxiety, satisfaction with life, and factors of the cognitive model of loneliness). We expect individuals in both intervention groups to show a greater reduction in loneliness and more pronounced effects in the secondary outcomes than in the wait-list control group.

    Second, we will compare the efficacy and long-term effects of the 2 active interventions regarding primary and secondary outcomes to specify the effects of added human contact through guidance. We expect greater changes in the primary and secondary outcomes in the intervention with guidance than in the intervention without guidance.

    Third, we will test potential baseline predictors for the efficacy of the interventions and explore moderators between the 2 active conditions to better understand which intervention (with or without guidance) works best for whom. Considering the exploratory nature of this objective, we have no specified hypothesis for this objective.

    Finally, we will explore potential mediators (mechanisms of change) of the interventions. We expect changes in cognitive bias and counterproductive social behavior, as described in the cognitive model of chronic loneliness [19], to explain reductions in loneliness.


    Study Design

    This study uses a 3-arm RCT design to compare 2 intervention groups (SOLUS-D with individualized guidance by a coach and SOLUS-D without guidance), with a wait-list control group. Participants in the 2 active conditions will have access to the 10-week internet-based self-help intervention immediately after randomization. Participants in the wait-list control group will receive access to the program after the intervention phase of 10 weeks and the completion of the postassessment measure. Assessments for all participants will be administered at baseline (time point 0), 5 weeks (time point 1, midtreatment), and 10 weeks (time point 2, after treatment) after randomization. In addition, participants in the 2 intervention groups will be followed up at 6 (time point 3) and 12 months (time point 4) after randomization. As participants in the control group will have access to the program after 10 weeks for ethical considerations, they will not be included in the follow-up measurements. The study design is illustrated in Figure 1.

    ‎
    Figure 1. Participant flow. FU: follow-up; ICBT: internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy; Mini-DIPS: Mini Diagnostic Interview for Mental Disorders; PHQ-9: Patient Health Questionnaire-9; T0: time point 0; T1: time point 1; T2: time point 2; T3: time point 3; T4: time point 4; UCLA: University of California, Los Angeles.
    View this figure

    Ethics Approval

    This study is being conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and has been approved by the Cantonal Ethics Committee, Bern (ID:202-01298). All participants will receive written information about the aim of the study, benefits, risks of participation, and procedure of the study. Participants will be informed that they can withdraw from the study at any time without disclosing their reasons. Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants before the baseline assessment. The trial was preregistered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04655196).

    Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

    The inclusion criteria for this study are as follows: (1) age of at least 18 years; (2) a score of at least 18 points on the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Loneliness Scale-9; (3) sufficient German language skills; (4) access to an internet connection and a device to use the intervention; and (5) signed informed consent and the provision of a contact in case of emergency. The cutoff score of the UCLA Loneliness Scale-9 was derived from the cutoff score used in the aforementioned study by Käll et al [54] by transforming it to a mean score and adapting it to the short version used in this study. Individuals will be excluded from the study if they (1) currently have at least moderately severe depressive symptoms (as indicated by a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] score >14), (2) have a lifetime diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, (3) fulfill the criteria for a severe substance use disorder, or (4) have acute suicidal plans. The exclusion criterion for schizophrenia will be assessed by means of screening questions regarding a former formal diagnosis or by the diagnostic interview Mini Diagnostic Interview for Mental Disorders (Mini-DIPS). The exclusion criteria for substance use disorder and acute suicidal plans will be assessed during the diagnostic interview (Mini-DIPS). In this study, there will be no restrictions regarding the use of other treatments during the study.

    Participants, Recruitment, and Randomization

    Participants will be recruited in German-speaking countries through reports in newspapers and radio interviews, internet forums, social media, our study website [61], and the website for ongoing studies from our research hub [62]. After checking the inclusion and exclusion criteria by means of the baseline assessment and a diagnostic interview, eligible participants will be automatically randomly allocated in a blockwise manner (blocks of 10 participants) on the web-based platform Qualtrics (Qualtrics XM) to either of the 2 active conditions or the wait-list control group (randomization ratio 2:2:1).

    Procedure

    Interested individuals will leave their email addresses on the study website and receive the study information and consent form by email. Participants will be invited to ask questions about the study by phone. Once the signed consent form is returned, a link to the baseline assessment will be sent via email. After the baseline assessment is completed, the diagnostic interview will be conducted over the telephone by trained master’s students and members of the study team. Subsequently, eligible participants will be randomly allocated to 1 of the 3 study groups. After randomization, individuals randomized to the 2 active conditions will receive immediate access to the internet-based self-help program SOLUS-D. Individuals in the wait-list control group will receive access to the program after a waiting period of 10 weeks after randomization. Participants in all 3 conditions will be asked to complete additional questionnaires 5 and 10 weeks after randomization. Furthermore, individuals in the 2 active conditions will be followed up for 6 and 12 months after randomization. Participants will receive a reminder via email each week for up to 3 weeks if they do not complete the questionnaires. After completing the postassessment measure, a random subsample of individuals in the active condition will be asked to participate in a qualitative interview. The aim is to gain more profound insight into their experience with the program and possible adverse effects during the intervention phase. At 6 months after randomization, participants in the 2 active conditions will be contacted once more by phone to conduct a second diagnostic interview. After the intervention phase, all participants will continue to have access to the self-help intervention in an unguided format. The participants will not be compensated for partaking in the trial.

    Intervention: Internet-Based Self-help Program—SOLUS-D

    Participants in both active conditions will have access to SOLUS-D, an internet-based self-help program. This intervention is a German adaptation and extension of the ICBT program developed by Käll et al [54]. The program is an internet-based and interactive self-help guide with text, audio, and video files and a diary function (Table 1). The program comprises 9 modules based on CBT principles. Expanding on the original program of Käll et al [54], the program used in this study has been enriched and extended with elements of mindfulness, self-compassion, acceptance and commitment, and social skills by our team. We will recommend completing 1 module per week and that participants work through the program sequentially. Each module builds on the previous module and takes approximately 50 minutes to complete. Theoretically, all modules can be completed at once; thus, they are not gradually made available weekly. Participants can navigate the content of the completed modules as they want and repeat the exercises and modules. Apart from working on the modules, the participants will be asked to complete exercises and web-based diaries as often as possible. The program is accessible on any computer, tablet, or smartphone. Secure Sockets Layer encryption will be used to secure internet-based communication with the program and guides, and participants will be identified with anonymous log-in names and passwords. The platform on which the program runs has been successfully used for several research projects in our research unit [63,64].

    Table 1. SOLUS-D content.
    Module numberModuleContentExercises
    1Loneliness and personal valuesInformation about the program use, structure of the intervention, and psychoeducation on loneliness and personal values are provided in this module.
    • Vicious circle of loneliness
      • ‎
    • Values in different life areas
      • ‎
    • Introduction to mood diary (continuous exercise)
      • ‎
    2Goal setting and mindfulnessPersonal goals are set and a theoretical and practical introduction to mindfulness is provided.
    • Setting goals
      • ‎
    • Mindful breathing
      • ‎
    • Body scan
      • ‎
    • 3-minute breathing space
      • ‎
    3Self-compassionA theoretical and practical introduction to self-compassion is provided.
    • Kindness meditation: self-compassion
      • ‎
    • LKMa
      • ‎
    • Introduction (self-) compassion diary (continuous exercise)
      • ‎
    4Acceptance of loneliness and solitudeThe importance of emotions is highlighted and a strategy for accepting emotions is introduced. Furthermore, time spent alone is reflected.
    • Accepting emotions
      • ‎
    • Exposition with time spent alone
      • ‎
    • Reframing time spent alone
      • ‎
    5Identifying and changing thoughtsThe impact of negative automatic thoughts and the relationship among thoughts, experiences, and behavior are introduced. Dysfunctional thoughts are identified and revised.
    • Identifying NATb
      • ‎
    • Challenging NAT and formulating alternative thoughts
      • ‎
    6Rumination and behavioral experimentsStrategies for dealing with rumination and the idea of behavioral experiments are introduced.
    • Disrupting rumination
      • ‎
    • Behavioral experiments
      • ‎
    7Social relationships and feeling connectedThe current social relationship situation is evaluated more closely, values in social relationships are identified, and various social skills for relationship building are introduced.
    • Social convoy
      • ‎
    • Values in close relationships
      • ‎
    • Boundaries
      • ‎
    8Building social activitiesThe relationship between behavior and loneliness is further highlighted, avoidance and passivity are addressed, and value-based social activities are introduced.
    • Avoidance and passivity
      • ‎
    • Value-based behavioral activation
      • ‎
    9More social activities and further goalsObstacles with behavioral activation are addressed, and new activities can be planned. Finally, the content of all modules is reviewed, and future goals can be set.
    • Value-based behavioral activation
      • ‎
    • Formulating further goals
      • ‎
    • Strategy toolbox
      • ‎

    aLKM: Loving Kindness Meditation.

    bNAT: negative automatic thought.

    Conditions

    ICBT With Guidance

    Individuals in this condition will use the SOLUS-D program while being guided by trained and supervised coaches. The coaches will regularly monitor the use of the program, provide weekly written feedback via chat within the self-help platform on exercises, and motivate participants to work with the program continuously. Each message will comprise personalized feedback on the participants’ work during the previous week and answers to their questions. The content of these messages will be semistructured and manualized according to the theoretical model of Supportive Accountability [65]. This model argues that adherence increases with human support through accountability to a coach. The coaches will be 2 psychologists with a master’s degree in clinical psychology in their first year of a postgraduate CBT program and several master’s students in their last term of a graduate program in clinical psychology. All coaches will be trained in the specific approach and supervised by NS and TK.

    ICBT Without Guidance

    In this condition, participants will also have access to SOLUS-D. However, they will not be guided and will use it on their own; yet, the participants will receive weekly automated and fully standardized emails during the 10 weeks. The content of these emails aims to remind and motivate participants to continue engaging with the program. Within the information about group allocation, it is explicitly stated that the automated email is automatically sent from a computer and not by a human being. During the intervention period, questions concerning technical issues with the program will be answered upon request by the study team.

    Wait-list Control Group

    Participants in this condition will receive access to the unguided intervention 10 weeks after randomization (ie, after the postassessment time point).

    Measures

    Overview

    Demographic information such as gender, marital status, and education level will be self-reported by participants at baseline. In addition, we will assess participants’ medication status at baseline and their use of psychotherapy at every measurement time point. Table 2 summarizes the instruments and schedule of the assessments in this study. In case there was no German version of a scale available, the original scale was translated from English to German by our research group and back translated by a native English-speaking person. Differences between this back-translation and the original scale were discussed until a consensus was reached regarding the necessary changes in the German version.

    Table 2. Assessment timeline.
    Type of variable and variableMeasurementBaseline (time point 0)5 weeks (time point 1)10 weeks (time point 2)6 monthsa (time point 3)12 monthsa (time point 4)
    Primary outcome

    		LonelinessUCLAb Loneliness Scale 9-item version✓✓✓✓✓
    Secondary outcomes

    		DepressionPatient Health Questionnaire-9✓✓✓✓✓

    		Social anxietySocial Interaction Anxiety Scale and Social Phobia Scale✓✓✓✓✓

    		Satisfaction with lifeSatisfaction with Life Scale✓✓✓✓✓

    		Social isolationSocial Network Index✓
    		✓✓✓

    		Self-compassionSussex Oxford Compassion Scale for the Self✓
    		✓


    		Maladaptive personality traitsPID-5-BF+c✓
    		✓


    		MisantropyBern Embitterment Inventoryd✓
    		✓


    		Motivation for solitudeMotivation for Solitude Scale–Short Formd✓
    		✓


    		Negative effectsInventory for the Assessment of Negative Effects of Psychotherapya

    		✓


    		Patient satisfactionClient Satisfaction Questionnairea

    		✓✓

    		System usabilitySystem Usability Scalea

    		✓


    		Mental disordersMini Diagnostic Interview for Mental Disorders✓

    		✓a
    Mechanisms of change

    		Interpretation biasInterpretation and Judgmental Bias Questionnairee✓✓✓


    		Rejection sensitivityAdult Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire✓✓✓


    		Social avoidanceCognitive-Behavioral Avoidance Scaled✓✓✓


    		Self-DisclosureDistress Disclosure Index✓✓✓


    		AuthenticityKernis and Goldman Authenticity Inventory–Short Form✓✓✓


    		Self-esteemRosenberg Self-Esteem Scale✓✓✓


    		Therapeutic allianceWorking Alliance Inventory for internet interventionsa,f
    		✓


    Moderators

    		MobilityPatient Questionnaire for Medical Rehabilitationd✓




    		Attachment styleAdult Attachment Scale✓




    		Childhood traumaChildhood Trauma Questionnaire✓




    		Demographic variablesN/Ag✓



    aIntervention groups only.

    bUCLA: University of California, Los Angeles.

    cPID-5-BF+: Personality Inventory for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 Brief Form Plus.

    dOnly subscales.

    eInterpretation bias only.

    fA total of 4 items will not be presented to participants in the SOLUS-D+automated feedback group as they are not plausible (eg, “The coach really cares about my well-being”).

    gN/A: not applicable.

    Primary Outcome Measure

    Loneliness, assessed with the 9-item short version [66] of the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale [67,68] at the postassessment time point, is the primary outcome. The original scale, comprising 20 items, assesses 3 different facets of loneliness: intimate loneliness, relational loneliness, and collective loneliness [69]. The short version comprises the 3 items with the highest loading on each factor [70]. The reliability and validity of this short version are comparable with those of the full 20-item version [70]. The response options are never (1), rarely (2), sometimes (3), and always (4). Ratings are summed, and scores range from 9 to 36, with higher scores indicating greater loneliness levels.

    Previous studies revealed a discrepancy, for example, in the prevalence of loneliness, when assessing loneliness directly or indirectly [71]. Therefore, loneliness will be further assessed with a single direct question (“Do you feel lonely”; rated on a 4-point scale with the response options 0=no, never; 1=yes, sometimes; 2=yes, quite often; 3=yes, very often) and a 3-item very short version [72] of the UCLA Loneliness Scale for which German population norms exist [73].

    Secondary Outcome Measures

    Depressive symptoms will be assessed using the 9-item depression module of the PHQ-9 [74,75]. All 9 items correspond to the 9 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)–IV criteria for depression. The items are rated on a 4-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day). Ratings are summed up, and scores range from 0 to 27. The PHQ-9 shows good validity [74] and sensitivity to change [75].

    Symptoms of social anxiety will be assessed with the short forms of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and Social Phobia Scale [76]. These 2 scales complement each other and are mostly administered together. The 12 items are rated on a 5-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely). The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and Social Phobia Scale showed good validity and sensitivity to change over time [76].

    Satisfaction with life will be measured with the Satisfaction With Life Scale [77,78]. A total of 5 items, such as “In most ways my life is close to my ideal,” are rated on a 7-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). This scale shows good psychometric properties and norm values based on a large German sample [79].

    Self-esteem will be assessed using the 10-item revised German version [80] of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale [81]. This scale measures positive and negative aspects of self-esteem. Items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (strongly agree) to 3 (strongly disagree). The internal consistency of the 1 factorial solution is good (Cronbach α=.84) [80].

    Objective social isolation will be measured using the Social Network Index [82]. This scale comprises 12 items assessing 12 different types of social relationships (eg, partner, parents, children, other close family members, close neighbors, friends, and fellow volunteers). Participants will be asked how many relationships of each type they have and how many of them they are in contact with at least once every 2 weeks. The network size, network diversity, and number of embedded subnetworks can be calculated using the Social Network Index [83].

    Maladaptive personality traits will be assessed using the 34-item Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 Brief Form Plus [84], a 34-item short version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 [85]. The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form Plus assesses 5 domains and 15 facets according to criterion B of the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders included in DSM-5, which are Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Antagonism, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism, plus the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11 domain Anankastia comprising 2 facets. Items are rated on a 4-point response scale ranging from 0 (very false or often false) to 3 (very true or often true). Scores can be calculated for the 17 facets and the 6 domains. Good internal consistency has been shown for the domain trait scores (McDonald ω=0.81) [84]. The average score of these 6 maladaptive trait domains can be used as an indicator of the severity of personality dysfunction according to the DSM-5 section III and the ICD-11 classification of Personality Disorders [86].

    The negative effects of the intervention will be assessed with the Inventory for the Assessment of Negative Effects of Psychotherapy (INEP) [87]. The INEP assesses any adverse effects on social, intrapersonal, or work-related situations and whether they are attributed to the intervention. As in other studies on internet-based interventions, the INEP was slightly adapted for its use with internet-based interventions.

    Client satisfaction with the treatment will be assessed with the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 [88]. The 8 items are rated on a 4-point scale from 1 (low satisfaction) to 4 (high satisfaction). We adapted this measure to explore participants’ satisfaction with the internet intervention applied in this study. The Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 is a valid measure for assessing client satisfaction [88] and shows good internal consistency (Cronbach α=.90) [89].

    The usability of the web-based program will be assessed using the System Usability Scale [90]. For this study, we adapted the measure to explore the experienced usability of the web-based program used in this trial. A total of 10 items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The usability score is obtained by multiplying the sum of all item scores by 2.5 and ranges from 0 to 100.

    Diagnoses of mental disorders will be assessed using the short version of the Mini-DIPS–Open Access [91]. This structured interview is openly accessible and allows the reliable assessment of diagnoses according to the DSM-5 and ICD-10.

    Adherence to the web-based program will be assessed using different indicators, such as (1) the number of modules completed and (2) time spent in the program. A module is completed when each page per module has been clicked at least once.

    Assessment of Potential Mechanisms of Change

    Interpretation bias will be assessed using the corresponding subscale of the Interpretation and Judgmental Bias Questionnaire [92,93]. The Interpretation and Judgmental Bias Questionnaire is a 24-item scale comprising brief scripts of 20 social events and 4 nonsocial control events. The social events can be divided into ambiguous, mildly negative, profoundly negative, and positive social events. For this study, we only assessed interpretation and not judgmental bias. For this purpose, each script will be followed with 4 alternative answers. The answers reflect positive, neutral, mildly negative, or profoundly negative interpretations of the event. The participants will be asked to rank the probability of these 4 interpretations. The score is the mean rank given to the profoundly negative interpretation of the scenarios and ranges between 1 and 4. A lower score indicates more negatively biased processing [94].

    Rejection sensitivity will be assessed using the adapted adult version (Adult Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire) [95] of the Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire [96]. In the Adult Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire, 9 hypothetical interpersonal situations are presented, and respondents indicate how they would feel or think in the stated situations. Respondents indicate on a 6-point scale how concerned they would be in that situation (very unconcerned to very concerned) and how likely they would expect to be accepted (very unlikely to very likely). One study shows high internal consistency (Cronbach α=.87) for the total score in a sample of adults with borderline personality disorder and acceptable consistency (Cronbach α=.75) for a healthy sample of adults [97].

    Social avoidance behavior will be assessed with the subscale Behavior-social avoidance of the Cognitive-Behavioral Avoidance Scale [98,99]. Participants are asked to rate their social behavior on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true for me) to 5 (extremely true for me; eg, “I make excuses to get out of social activities.”). The subscale has shown good internal consistency (Cronbach α=.86) [99].

    Comfort with self-disclosure will be assessed using the Distress Disclosure Index [100]. It is a 12-item scale designed to measure the degree to which a person is comfortable talking with others about personally distressing information (eg, “I am willing to tell others my distressing thoughts”). Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Distress Disclosure Index has shown good psychometric properties [101].

    Authenticity will be assessed using the 20-item short form (Kernis-Goldman Authenticity Inventory [KGAI]–Short Form [102]) of the KGAI version 3 [103]. It assesses 4 underlying dimensions of authenticity (awareness, unbiased processing, behavior, and relational orientation), and items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The KGAI–Short Form shows good internal consistency (Cronbach α=.87) and good convergent and discriminant validity [102].

    Self-compassion will be assessed using the Sussex Oxford Compassion Scale for the Self [104]. This scale measures five dimensions of compassion: (1) recognizing suffering, (2) understanding the universality of suffering, (3) feeling for the person in suffering, (4) tolerating uncomfortable feelings, and (5) motivation to act to alleviate the suffering. The 20 items will be rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (always true). This scale shows adequate internal consistency and convergent and discriminant validity [104].

    Misanthropy will be assessed using the respective subscale of the Bern Embitterment Inventory [105]. This subscale measures a general contempt of human beings (eg, “Sometimes I feel hatred towards mankind or a part of it”). The 4 items are rated on a scale from 0 (I do not agree) to 4 (I agree). The Cronbach α for this scale is .65 [105].

    Self-determined motivation for solitude will be assessed with the corresponding 8-item subscale from the Motivation for Solitude Scale–Short Form [106]. This subscale measures the degree of the desire to spend time alone. Items are introduced with “When I spend time alone, I do so because...” and rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all important) to 4 (very important). The answers are summed, and higher scores indicate a higher self-determined motivation for solitude. The Motivation for Solitude Scale–Short Form is a reliable and valid measure of the motivation for solitude [106].

    Working alliance will be assessed with the Working Alliance Inventory (Working Alliance Inventory-Short Revised) [107] adapted for guided internet interventions (WAI-I) [108]. The WAI-I comprises two subscales: (1) task and goal agreement dimension and (2) bond with the guide dimension (bond). The full scale comprises 12 items (eg, “With the online program, it has become clearer to me how I can change”) that are answered on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Participants in the ICBT condition without guidance will only respond to the 8 items of the task and goal dimension as the items of the bond dimension are not plausibly answerable. The WAI-I is a valid instrument for measuring working alliance in the context of guided interventions and shows good internal consistency for both the total score and the 2 subscales [108].

    Assessment of Moderators

    Mobility will be assessed using the corresponding subscale of the Patient Questionnaire for Medical Rehabilitation (Indicators of Rehabilitation Status-3) [109]. Respondents rate 4 items on a 5-point scale about how many difficulties they experienced during the past 4 weeks (eg, climbing a staircase over 3 floors). Items are rated on a 5-point scale from 1 (impossible) to 5 (no difficulties). The mobility subscale shows good internal consistency (Cronbach α=.85) [109].

    Attachment style will be measured using the Adult Attachment Scale (AAS) [110,111]. The AAS comprises 16 items forming three subscales: (1) comfortability with closeness and intimacy, (2) the degree to which one can depend on others when they are needed, and (3) the degree to which one is worried about being rejected or unloved. The items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all characteristic of me) to 5 (very characteristic of me). The AAS shows satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach α=.72-.79) [110].

    Childhood trauma will be assessed using the 28-item Childhood Trauma Questionnaire [112,113]. Respondents are asked about their experiences of sexual, physical, and emotional maltreatment and physical and emotional neglect in childhood and adolescence. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never true) to 5 (very often true). Higher values indicate a higher degree of childhood maltreatment. All scales (except physical neglect) show high internal consistency (Cronbach α ≥.89) [112].

    Sample Size

    A power analysis was conducted using G*Power 3 [114]. We aim to detect small effect sizes [115] of 𝑓=0.10 (equivalent to Cohen d=0.20) regarding the time×group interaction for the 2 active conditions at an α error level of .05. A power analysis revealed that a sample size of 80 participants in each of the active study arms is required to detect a statistically significant difference with a power (1 – β) of 0.80, assuming correlations of r=0.60 between before and posttreatment measures, as previously found in another trial on ICBT for loneliness [57]. Sample size was further estimated based on a dropout rate of approximately 25%. We finally decided to randomize 100 participants to each of the active conditions. For the comparisons between the active conditions and the wait-list, 50 participants were considered sufficient for the wait-list control group condition as between-group effect sizes were assumed to be large based on the results of the aforementioned Swedish trials [54,57]. Consequently, we aim to randomize 250 participants with a randomization ratio of 2:2:1.

    Statistical Analyses

    Analyses will be conducted using an intention-to-treat sample. In addition, we will conduct analyses in the per-protocol sample (ie, comprising participants who complete both baseline and postassessment measures and log into ≥4 modules of the program, defined as minimal therapeutic exposure). To assess if randomization was successful, we will compare baseline characteristics between the 3 conditions using chi-square tests (categorical) and F tests (continuous). Continuous outcomes will be analyzed using mixed-effects models. These analyses will model random slopes and intercepts for participants and test the fixed effects of the condition, as well as repeated assessments over time, using data from all participants. Differential intervention efficacy shows in significant interactions between the condition and time. An advantage of mixed-effects models is their ability to account for missing values through maximum likelihood estimation [116]. Significant overall effects will be followed up with contrasts comparing the 2 active conditions pooled together (ie, ICBT with and without guidance) against the control group, followed by a comparison of the 2 active conditions against each other. Significance levels will be set at P=.05. Effect sizes will be computed based on the work by Cohen [117], dividing the treatment effect by the pooled SD. In addition, we will calculate reliable changes according to the Reliable Change Index [118].

    To test the mediation hypotheses, we will determine the extent of mediation of the change scores from baseline to week 5 (midassessment) and baseline to week 10 (postassessment) on the potential mechanism of change in week 10 and follow-up loneliness scores, respectively. Indirect effects will be tested by calculating bootstrapped CIs [119].

    To test the moderation hypotheses, we will exploratorily include the scores of the various measures as the moderation variable to build 3-way interaction terms (condition×time×moderator) in separate mixed models. To facilitate the post hoc interpretation of interaction effects, continuous moderator variables will be grand mean centered [120]. Significant interaction effects will be followed up by applying the Johnson-Neyman technique [121].


    Recruitment started in May 2021 and is expected to be completed in 2022, with the 12-month follow-ups to be completed in 2023. We intend to submit the first results for open access publication in 2023. In addition, the findings of this trial will be presented at national and international conferences. Only aggregated group data will be reported, and no individuals will be identifiable.


    General Discussion

    Chronic loneliness is a prevalent clinical phenomenon in the population, with a variety of adverse effects on mental and physical health [8], leading to increased mortality [9]. Psychological interventions have generally been shown to be effective in reducing loneliness [48]. Such interventions at an individual level may play a crucial role in reducing the burden of loneliness and complementing social and societal-based interventions [122-124]. Although various treatments for alleviating loneliness have been developed and tested, more well-controlled clinical trials are needed to inform about efficacious interventions for loneliness.

    This study aims to test the efficacy of an internet-based self-help intervention (SOLUS-D) in reducing loneliness. We expect participants in both intervention groups to show greater decreases in loneliness compared with a wait-list control group at the posttreatment time point. Furthermore, reductions in loneliness will be expected to be more pronounced in participants receiving guidance than in the group without guidance. By comparing the 2 intervention groups with and without guidance, we will be able to inform about the incremental effect of guidance beyond that of the ICBT intervention. We will also look at acceptability aspects such as intervention satisfaction, adherence, and potential negative effects to further refine the intervention. In addition, we will investigate potential moderating variables on an exploratory level to gain insights into how and for whom exactly the intervention works. Furthermore, knowledge on mechanisms of change in treating chronic loneliness will be expanded. This will provide further insight into the maintaining factors of chronic loneliness that interventions should focus on and, at the same time, test the proposed model of chronic loneliness [19]. Finally, the results of this study will inform which individuals can profit (most) from an internet-based ICBT intervention for loneliness.

    Limitations

    The limitations of our study must be considered. First, the sample in our study is self-selective and excludes individuals with no access to the internet or a device to use the intervention. Second, people with heightened degrees of symptom severity of mental disorders, such as at least moderately severe depressive symptoms, will be excluded from this study. Consequently, results will not be generalizable to all people experiencing loneliness. Third, within our study design, we will not be able to compare the long-term effects of the intervention with the wait-list, as we did not want the wait-list control group to wait too long to have access to the intervention. Fourth, we did not want to restrict access to care as usual in this study. This reduces the internal validity of this study to some extent while simultaneously increasing its external validity.

    Conclusions

    In this study protocol, we describe the design of an RCT evaluating an internet-based self-help intervention with and without guidance based on CBT principles for loneliness compared with a wait-list control group in adults. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first RCT to evaluate an internet-based self-help intervention based on CBT principles for loneliness in German-speaking countries. The results of this study will enrich previous findings on the efficacy of internet-based self-help interventions for loneliness and inform on what treatments work for whom in alleviating loneliness. On the basis of our findings, policy makers could be informed about the efficacy of interventions with low-threshold access for alleviating loneliness.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors would like to thank all involved master’s degree students for their ongoing help in conducting the diagnostic interviews and guidance. Furthermore, the authors would like to thank Stefan Kodzhabashev for his highly appreciated information technology support. The authors would also like to thank Annett Koerner for providing us with the German version of the Sussex Oxford Compassion Scale for the Self and Johanna Boettcher for providing us with the German version of the Interpretation and Judgmental Bias Questionnaire.

    This study was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (100019_192416). The funding body played no role in the study design, data collection, or manuscript writing.

    Authors' Contributions

    TK designed and received funding for this study. AK and GA provided the original Swedish version of the self-help program and provided helpful insights gained from their clinical trials on loneliness. NS, AS, and TK designed and extended the German version of the program. NS, AS, and TK conducted this study. NS and TK wrote the first draft of the manuscript. TB, ML, AK, and GA critically proofread the manuscript and provided valuable inputs for adjustments. All authors contributed to the final version of this manuscript.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    1. Jeste DV, Lee EE, Cacioppo S. Battling the modern behavioral epidemic of loneliness: suggestions for research and interventions. JAMA Psychiatry 2020 Jun 01;77(6):553-554 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Lippke S, Keller F, Derksen C, Kötting L, Ratz T, Fleig L. Einsam(er) seit der Coronapandemie: Wer ist besonders betroffen? – psychologische Befunde aus Deutschland. Präv Gesundheitsf 2021 Mar 11;17(1):84-95. [CrossRef]
    3. van der Velden PG, Hyland P, Contino C, von Gaudecker HM, Muffels R, Das M. Anxiety and depression symptoms, the recovery from symptoms, and loneliness before and after the COVID-19 outbreak among the general population: Findings from a Dutch population-based longitudinal study. PLoS One 2021;16(1):e0245057 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. d'Hombres B, Schnepf S, Barjakovà M, Teixeira Mendonça F. Loneliness - an unequally shared burden in Europe*. European Commission. 2018.   URL: https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fairness_pb2018_loneliness_jrc_i1.pdf [accessed 2022-06-16]
    5. Beutel ME, Klein EM, Brähler E, Reiner I, Jünger C, Michal M, et al. Loneliness in the general population: prevalence, determinants and relations to mental health. BMC Psychiatry 2017 Mar 20;17(1):97 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Buecker S, Mund M, Chwastek S, Sostmann M, Luhmann M. Is loneliness in emerging adults increasing over time? A preregistered cross-temporal meta-analysis and systematic review. Psychol Bull 2021 Aug;147(8):787-805. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Luhmann M, Hawkley LC. Age differences in loneliness from late adolescence to oldest old age. Dev Psychol 2016 Jun;52(6):943-959 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Hawkley LC, Capitanio JP. Perceived social isolation, evolutionary fitness and health outcomes: a lifespan approach. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2015 May 26;370(1669):20140114 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Baker M, Harris T, Stephenson D. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspect Psychol Sci 2015 Mar;10(2):227-237. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Rico-Uribe LA, Caballero FF, Martín-María N, Cabello M, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Miret M. Association of loneliness with all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2018;13(1):e0190033 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Mann F, Bone JK, Lloyd-Evans B, Frerichs J, Pinfold V, Ma R, et al. A life less lonely: the state of the art in interventions to reduce loneliness in people with mental health problems. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2017 Jun;52(6):627-638 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Baumeister RF, Leary MR. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol Bull 1995 May;117(3):497-529. [Medline]
    13. Peplau L, Perlman D. Perspective on loneliness. In: Peplau LA, Perlman D, editors. Lonelinss: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley and Sons; 1982:1-18.
    14. Hyland P, Shevlin M, Cloitre M, Karatzias T, Vallières F, McGinty G, et al. Quality not quantity: loneliness subtypes, psychological trauma, and mental health in the US adult population. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2019 Sep;54(9):1089-1099. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Young JE. Loneliness, depression and cognitive therapy: theory and application. In: Peplau LA, Perlman D, editors. Lonelinss: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons; 1982:379-405.
    16. Cacioppo JT, Hawkley LC, Ernst JM, Burleson M, Berntson GG, Nouriani B, et al. Loneliness within a nomological net: an evolutionary perspective. J Res Pers 2006 Dec;40(6):1054-1085. [CrossRef]
    17. Asher SR, Paquette JA. Loneliness and peer relations in childhood. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2016 Jun 23;12(3):75-78 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    18. Shiovitz-Ezra S, Ayalon L. Situational versus chronic loneliness as risk factors for all-cause mortality. Int Psychogeriatr 2010 May;22(3):455-462. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Cacioppo JT, Hawkley LC. Perceived social isolation and cognition. Trends Cogn Sci 2009 Oct;13(10):447-454 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Qualter P, Vanhalst J, Harris R, Van Roekel E, Lodder G, Bangee M, et al. Loneliness across the life span. Perspect Psychol Sci 2015 Mar;10(2):250-264. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Gardner WL, Pickett CL, Jefferis V, Knowles M. On the outside looking in: loneliness and social monitoring. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2005 Nov;31(11):1549-1560. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Watson J, Nesdale D. Rejection sensitivity, social withdrawal, and loneliness in young adults. J Appl Soc Psychol 2012 Jun 14;42(8):1984-2005 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    23. Spithoven AW, Bijttebier P, Goossens L. It is all in their mind: a review on information processing bias in lonely individuals. Clin Psychol Rev 2017 Dec;58:97-114. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Bryan JL, Baker ZG, Tou RY. Prevent the blue, be true to you: authenticity buffers the negative impact of loneliness on alcohol-related problems, physical symptoms, and depressive and anxiety symptoms. J Health Psychol 2017 Apr;22(5):605-616. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Burke TJ, Woszidlo A, Segrin C. Social skills, family conflict, and loneliness in families. Commun Rep 2012 Jul 8;25(2):75-87. [CrossRef]
    26. Leung L. Loneliness, self-disclosure, and ICQ ("I seek you") use. Cyberpsychol Behav 2002 Jun;5(3):241-251. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Preece DA, Goldenberg A, Becerra R, Boyes M, Hasking P, Gross JJ. Loneliness and emotion regulation. Pers Individ Dif 2021 Oct;180:110974. [CrossRef]
    28. Best T, Herring L, Clarke C, Kirby J, Gilbert P. The experience of loneliness: the role of fears of compassion and social safeness. Pers Individ Dif 2021 Dec;183:111161. [CrossRef]
    29. Collins NL, Miller LC. Self-disclosure and liking: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull 1994 Nov;116(3):457-475. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Laurenceau JP, Barrett LF, Pietromonaco PR. Intimacy as an interpersonal process: the importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. J Pers Soc Psychol 1998 May;74(5):1238-1251. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Butler EA, Egloff B, Wilhelm FH, Smith NC, Erickson EA, Gross JJ. The social consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion 2003 Mar;3(1):48-67. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Plasencia ML, Taylor CT, Alden LE. Unmasking one’s true self facilitates positive relational outcomes. Clin Psychol Sci 2016 Jun 23;4(6):1002-1014. [CrossRef]
    33. Neff KD, Beretvas SN. The role of self-compassion in romantic relationships. Self Identity 2013 Jan;12(1):78-98. [CrossRef]
    34. Lathren CR, Rao SS, Park J, Bluth K. Self-compassion and current close interpersonal relationships: a scoping literature review. Mindfulness 2021 May;12(5):1078-1093 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Bellucci G. Positive attitudes and negative expectations in lonely individuals. Sci Rep 2020 Oct 29;10(1):18595 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Tsai FF, Reis HT. Perceptions by and of lonely people in social networks. Pers Relatsh 2009 Jun;16(2):221-238 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    37. Wei M, Russell DW, Zakalik RA. Adult attachment, social self-efficacy, self-disclosure, loneliness, and subsequent depression for freshman college students: a longitudinal study. J Couns Psychol 2005 Oct;52(4):602-614. [CrossRef]
    38. Käll A, Shafran R, Lindegaard T, Bennett S, Cooper Z, Coughtrey A, et al. A common elements approach to the development of a modular cognitive behavioral theory for chronic loneliness. J Consult Clin Psychol 2020 Mar;88(3):269-282. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Santini ZI, Jose PE, York Cornwell E, Koyanagi A, Nielsen L, Hinrichsen C, et al. Social disconnectedness, perceived isolation, and symptoms of depression and anxiety among older Americans (NSHAP): a longitudinal mediation analysis. Lancet Public Health 2020 Jan;5(1):e62-e70 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Michalska da Rocha B, Rhodes S, Vasilopoulou E, Hutton P. Loneliness in psychosis: a meta-analytical review. Schizophr Bull 2018 Jan 13;44(1):114-125 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Ernst M, Klein EM, Beutel ME, Brähler E. Gender-specific associations of loneliness and suicidal ideation in a representative population sample: young, lonely men are particularly at risk. J Affect Disord 2021 Nov 01;294:63-70. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Gomboc V, Krohne N, Lavrič M, Podlogar T, Poštuvan V, Zadravec Šedivy N, et al. Emotional and social loneliness as predictors of suicidal ideation in different age groups. Community Ment Health J 2022 Feb;58(2):311-320. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Griffin SC, Williams AB, Ravyts SG, Mladen SN, Rybarczyk BD. Loneliness and sleep: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychol Open 2020;7(1):2055102920913235 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. VanderWeele TJ, Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT. On the reciprocal association between loneliness and subjective well-being. Am J Epidemiol 2012 Nov 01;176(9):777-784 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Cacioppo JT, Hawkley LC, Thisted RA. Perceived social isolation makes me sad: 5-year cross-lagged analyses of loneliness and depressive symptomatology in the Chicago Health, Aging, and Social Relations Study. Psychol Aging 2010 Jun;25(2):453-463 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Cacioppo JT, Hughes ME, Waite LJ, Hawkley LC, Thisted RA. Loneliness as a specific risk factor for depressive symptoms: cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Psychol Aging 2006 Mar;21(1):140-151. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Lim MH, Rodebaugh TL, Zyphur MJ, Gleeson JF. Loneliness over time: the crucial role of social anxiety. J Abnorm Psychol 2016 Jul;125(5):620-630. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. Hickin N, Käll A, Shafran R, Sutcliffe S, Manzotti G, Langan D. The effectiveness of psychological interventions for loneliness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 2021 Aug;88:102066. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Masi CM, Chen HY, Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT. A meta-analysis of interventions to reduce loneliness. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2011 Aug;15(3):219-266 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Poscia A, Stojanovic J, La Milia DI, Duplaga M, Grysztar M, Moscato U, et al. Interventions targeting loneliness and social isolation among the older people: an update systematic review. Exp Gerontol 2018 Feb;102:133-144. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. Ma R, Mann F, Wang J, Lloyd-Evans B, Terhune J, Al-Shihabi A, et al. The effectiveness of interventions for reducing subjective and objective social isolation among people with mental health problems: a systematic review. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2020 Jul;55(7):839-876 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Andersson G. Internet-delivered psychological treatments. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2016;12:157-179. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    53. Lau S, Gruen GE. The social stigma of loneliness: effect of target person's and perceiver's sex. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1992 Apr;18(2):182-189. [CrossRef]
    54. Käll A, Jägholm S, Hesser H, Andersson F, Mathaldi A, Norkvist BT, et al. Internet-based cognitive behavior therapy for loneliness: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Behav Ther 2020 Jan;51(1):54-68. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. Soucy JN, Hadjistavropoulos HD. Treatment acceptability and preferences for managing severe health anxiety: perceptions of Internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy among primary care patients. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 2017 Dec;57:14-24. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Käll A, Backlund U, Shafran R, Andersson A. Lonesome no more? A two-year follow-up of internet-administered cognitive behavioral therapy for loneliness. Internet Interv 2020 Mar;19:100301 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    57. Käll A, Bäck M, Welin C, Åman H, Bjerkander R, Wänman M, et al. Therapist-guided internet-based treatments for loneliness: a randomized controlled three-arm trial comparing cognitive behavioral therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy. Psychother Psychosom 2021;90(5):351-358 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Bouwman TE, Aartsen MJ, van Tilburg TG, Stevens NL. Does stimulating various coping strategies alleviate loneliness? Results from an online friendship enrichment program. J Soc Pers Relat 2017 Sep;34(6):793-811 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    59. Bouwman T, van Tilburg T, Aartsen M. Attrition in an online loneliness intervention for adults aged 50 years and older: survival analysis. JMIR Aging 2019 Jul 24;2(2):e13638 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    60. Moshe I, Terhorst Y, Philippi P, Domhardt M, Cuijpers P, Cristea I, et al. Digital interventions for the treatment of depression: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull 2021 Aug;147(8):749-786. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    61. Study Website SOLUS. SOLUS.   URL: https://selfhelp.psy.unibe.ch/solus/Homepage [accessed 2022-06-16]
    62. Online self-help and psychotherapy at the University of Bern. Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Bern. 2021.   URL: http://www.online-therapy.ch/ [accessed 2022-06-16]
    63. Bur OT, Krieger T, Moritz S, Klein JP, Berger T. Optimizing the context of support of Web-based self-help in individuals with mild to moderate depressive symptoms: a randomized full factorial trial. Behav Res Ther 2022 May;152:104070 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    64. Brog NA, Hegy JK, Berger T, Znoj H. Effects of an Internet-based self-help intervention for psychological distress due to COVID-19: results of a randomized controlled trial. Internet Interv 2022 Mar;27:100492 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    65. Mohr DC, Cuijpers P, Lehman K. Supportive accountability: a model for providing human support to enhance adherence to eHealth interventions. J Med Internet Res 2011 Mar 10;13(1):e30 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. Luhmann M, Bohn J, Holtmann J, Koch T, Eid M. I’m lonely, can’t you tell? Convergent validity of self- and informant ratings of loneliness. J Res Pers 2016 Apr;61:50-60. [CrossRef]
    67. Döring N, Bortz J. Psychometrische Einsamkeitsforschung: Deutsche Neukonstruktion der UCLA Loneliness Scale. Diagnostica 1993;39(3):224-239.
    68. Russell DW. UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): reliability, validity, and factor structure. J Pers Assess 1996 Feb;66(1):20-40. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    69. Hawkley LC, Browne MW, Cacioppo JT. How can I connect with thee? Let me count the ways. Psychol Sci 2005 Oct;16(10):798-804. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    70. Cacioppo JT, Adler AB, Lester PB, McGurk D, Thomas JL, Chen HY, et al. Building social resilience in soldiers: a double dissociative randomized controlled study. J Pers Soc Psychol 2015 Jul;109(1):90-105. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    71. Shiovitz-Ezra S, Ayalon L. Use of direct versus indirect approaches to measure loneliness in later life. Res Aging 2011 Dec 14;34(5):572-591. [CrossRef]
    72. Hughes ME, Waite LJ, Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT. A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys: results from two population-based studies. Res Aging 2004;26(6):655-672 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    73. Klein E, Zenger M, Tibubos AN, Ernst M, Reiner I, Schmalbach B, et al. Loneliness and its relation to mental health in the general population: validation and norm values of a brief measure. J Affect Disord Rep 2021 Apr;4:100120. [CrossRef]
    74. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med 2001 Sep;16(9):606-613 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    75. Löwe B, Kroenke K, Herzog B, Gräfe K. Measuring depression outcome with a brief self-report instrument: sensitivity to change of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). J Affect Disord 2004 Jul;81(1):61-66. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    76. Peters L, Sunderland M, Andrews G, Rapee RM, Mattick RP. Development of a short form Social Interaction Anxiety (SIAS) and Social Phobia Scale (SPS) using nonparametric item response theory: the SIAS-6 and the SPS-6. Psychol Assess 2012 Mar;24(1):66-76. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    77. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess 1985 Feb;49(1):71-75. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    78. Schumacher J. Satisfaction with life scale. In: Schumacher J, Klaiberg A, Brähler E, editors. Diagnostische Verfahren zu Lebensqualität und Wohlbefinden. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe Publishing; 2003:305-309.
    79. Hinz A, Conrad I, Schroeter ML, Glaesmer H, Brähler E, Zenger M, et al. Psychometric properties of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), derived from a large German community sample. Qual Life Res 2018 Jun;27(6):1661-1670. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    80. von Collani G, Herzberg PY. Eine revidierte Fassung der deutschsprachigen Skala zum Selbstwertgefühl von Rosenberg. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie 2003 Mar;24(1):3-7. [CrossRef]
    81. Rosenberg M. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press; 1965.
    82. Cohen S, Doyle WJ, Skoner DP, Rabin BS, Gwaltney JM. Social ties and susceptibility to the common cold. JAMA 1997 Jun 25;277(24):1940-1944. [Medline]
    83. Liebke L, Bungert M, Thome J, Hauschild S, Gescher DM, Schmahl C, et al. Loneliness, social networks, and social functioning in borderline personality disorder. Personal Disord 2017 Oct;8(4):349-356. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    84. Kerber A, Schultze M, Müller S, Rühling RM, Wright AG, Spitzer C, et al. Development of a short and ICD-11 compatible measure for maladaptive personality traits using ant colony optimization algorithms. Assessment 2022 Apr;29(3):467-487 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    85. Krueger RF, Derringer J, Markon KE, Watson D, Skodol AE. Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychol Med 2012 Sep;42(9):1879-1890 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    86. Zimmermann J, Müller S, Bach B, Hutsebaut J, Hummelen B, Fischer F. A common metric for self-reported severity of personality disorder. Psychopathology 2020 May 19;53(3-4):168-178. [CrossRef]
    87. Ladwig I, Rief W, Nestoriuc Y. Welche Risiken und Nebenwirkungen hat Psychotherapie? - Entwicklung des Inventars zur Erfassung Negativer Effekte von Psychotherapie (INEP). Verhaltenstherapie 2014 Oct 30;24(4):252-263 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    88. Schmidt J, Lamprecht F, Wittmann WW. Zufriedenheit mit der stationären Versorgung. Entwicklung eines Fragebogens und erste Validitätsuntersuchungen. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 1989 Jul;39(7):248-255. [Medline]
    89. Kriz D, Nübling R, Steffanowski A, Wittmann WW, Schmidt J. Patientenzufriedenheit in der stationären rehabilitation: psychometrische Reanalyse des ZUF-8 auf der Basis multizentrischer Stichproben verschiedener Indikation. Z Med Psychol 2008;17(2-3):67-79 [FREE Full text]
    90. Brooke J. SUS: a 'quick and dirty' usability scale. In: Jordan PW, Thomas B, McClelland IL, Weerdmeester B, editors. Usability Evaluation in Industry. London, UK: Taylor & Francis; 1996:189-194.
    91. Margraf J, Cwik JC, Pflug V, Schneider S. Strukturierte klinische Interviews zur Erfassung psychischer Störungen über die Lebensspanne. Z Klin Psychol Psychother 2017 Jul;46(3):176-186. [CrossRef]
    92. Brettschneider M, Neumann P, Berger T, Renneberg B, Boettcher J. Internet-based interpretation bias modification for social anxiety: a pilot study. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 2015 Dec;49(Pt A):21-29. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    93. Voncken MJ, Bögels SM, de Vries K. Interpretation and judgmental biases in social phobia. Behav Res Ther 2003 Dec;41(12):1481-1488. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    94. Badra M, Schulze L, Becker ES, Vrijsen JN, Renneberg B, Zetsche U. The association between ruminative thinking and negative interpretation bias in social anxiety. Cogn Emot 2017 Sep;31(6):1234-1242. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    95. Berenson KR, Gyurak A, Ayduk O, Downey G, Garner MJ, Mogg K, et al. Rejection sensitivity and disruption of attention by social threat cues. J Res Pers 2009 Dec 01;43(6):1064-1072 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    96. Downey G, Feldman SI. Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol 1996 Jun;70(6):1327-1343. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    97. Bungert M, Liebke L, Thome J, Haeussler K, Bohus M, Lis S. Rejection sensitivity and symptom severity in patients with borderline personality disorder: effects of childhood maltreatment and self-esteem. Borderline Personal Disord Emot Dysregul 2015;2:4 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    98. Ottenbreit ND, Dobson KS. Avoidance and depression: the construction of the cognitive-behavioral avoidance scale. Behav Res Ther 2004 Mar;42(3):293-313. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    99. Röthlin P, Grosse Holtforth M, Bergomi C, Berking M, Ottenbreit ND, Caspar F. Vermeidung und depression. Diagnostica 2010 Jan 22;56(1):46-55. [CrossRef]
    100. Kahn JH, Hessling RM. Measuring the tendency to conceal versus disclose psychological distress. J Soc Clin Psychol 2001 Mar;20(1):41-65. [CrossRef]
    101. Kahn JH, Hucke BE, Bradley AM, Glinski AJ, Malak BL. The Distress Disclosure Index: a research review and multitrait-multimethod examination. J Couns Psychol 2012 Jan;59(1):134-149. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    102. Bond MJ, Strauss NE, Wickham RE. Development and validation of the Kernis-Goldman authenticity inventory-short form (KGAI-SF). Pers Individ Dif 2018 Nov;134:1-6. [CrossRef]
    103. Kernis MH, Goldman BM. A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: theory and research. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 2006;38:283-357 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    104. Gu J, Baer R, Cavanagh K, Kuyken W, Strauss C. Development and psychometric properties of the Sussex-Oxford Compassion Scales (SOCS). Assessment 2020 Jan;27(1):3-20 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    105. Znoj H. Berner Verbitterungs-Inventar. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe Publishing; 2008.
    106. Thomas V, Azmitia M. Motivation matters: development and validation of the Motivation for Solitude Scale - Short Form (MSS-SF). J Adolesc 2019 Jan;70:33-42. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    107. Munder T, Wilmers F, Leonhart R, Linster HW, Barth J. Working Alliance Inventory-Short Revised (WAI-SR): psychometric properties in outpatients and inpatients. Clin Psychol Psychother 2010;17(3):231-239. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    108. Gómez Penedo JM, Berger T, Grosse Holtforth M, Krieger T, Schröder J, Hohagen F, et al. The Working Alliance Inventory for guided Internet interventions (WAI-I). J Clin Psychol 2020 Jun;76(6):973-986. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    109. Bührlen B, Gerdes N, Jäckel WH. [Development and psychometric testing of a patient questionnaire for medical rehabilitation (IRES-3)]. Rehabilitation (Stuttg) 2005 Apr;44(2):63-74. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    110. Schmidt S, Strauss B, Höger D, Brähler E. Die Adult Attachment Scale (AAS) - Teststatistische Prüfung und Normierung der deutschen Version. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 2004;54(9-10):375-382. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    111. Collins NL, Read SJ. Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. J Pers Soc Psychol 1990 Apr;58(4):644-663. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    112. Wingenfeld K, Spitzer C, Mensebach C, Grabe HJ, Hill A, Gast U, et al. Die deutsche Version des Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ): Erste Befunde zu den psychometrischen Kennwerten. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 2010 Nov;60(11):442-450. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    113. Bernstein DP, Stein JA, Newcomb MD, Walker E, Pogge D, Ahluvalia T, et al. Development and validation of a brief screening version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. Child Abuse Negl 2003 Feb;27(2):169-190. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    114. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007 May;39(2):175-191. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    115. Baumeister H, Reichler L, Munzinger M, Lin J. The impact of guidance on Internet-based mental health interventions — a systematic review. Internet Interv 2014 Oct;1(4):205-215. [CrossRef]
    116. Graham JW. Missing data analysis: making it work in the real world. Annu Rev Psychol 2009;60:549-576. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    117. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull 1992 Jul;112(1):155-159. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    118. Jacobson NS, Truax P. Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol 1991 Feb;59(1):12-19. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    119. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 2004 Nov;36(4):717-731. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    120. Aiken LS, West SG. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications; 1991.
    121. Hayes AF. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based Approach. 2nd edition. New York, NY, USA: The Guilford Press; 2018.
    122. Wang J, Mann F, Lloyd-Evans B, Ma R, Johnson S. Associations between loneliness and perceived social support and outcomes of mental health problems: a systematic review. BMC Psychiatry 2018 May 29;18(1):156 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    123. Holt-Lunstad J. Why social relationships are important for physical health: a systems approach to understanding and modifying risk and protection. Annu Rev Psychol 2018 Jan 04;69:437-458. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    124. Holt-Lunstad J. Social connection as a public health issue: the evidence and a systemic framework for prioritizing the "social" in social determinants of health. Annu Rev Public Health 2022 Apr 05;43:193-213. [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    AAS: Adult Attachment Scale
    CBT: cognitive behavioral therapy
    DSM: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
    ICBT: internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy
    ICD: International Classification of Diseases
    IIPT: internet-based interpersonal therapy
    INEP: Inventory for the Assessment of Negative Effects of Psychotherapy
    KGAI: Kernis-Goldman Authenticity Inventory
    Mini-DIPS: Mini Diagnostic Interview for Mental Disorders
    PHQ-9: Patient Health Questionnaire-9
    RCT: randomized controlled trial
    UCLA: University of California, Los Angeles
    WAI-I: Working Alliance Inventory for Internet interventions

    Edited by T Leung; submitted 15.03.22; peer-reviewed by E Boucher, I Moshe; comments to author 30.04.22; revised version received 19.05.22; accepted 24.05.22; published 22.07.22

    Copyright

    ©Noëmi Seewer, Andrej Skoko, Anton Käll, Gerhard Andersson, Maike Luhmann, Thomas Berger, Tobias Krieger. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 22.07.2022.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Research Protocols, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.researchprotocols.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.