key-findings-from-report-on-social-connections-and-loneliness-in-oecd-countries-16-october-2025.pdf

key-findings-from-report-on-social-connections-and-loneliness-in-oecd-countries-16-october-2025.pdf

• 1.
  Social Connections andLoneliness in OECD Countries A report from the WISE Centre CENTRE ON WELL-BEING, INCLUSION, SUSTAINABILITY AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY (WISE) Key Findings
• 2.
  A fulfilling sociallife is vital for broader well-being, and the costs of disconnection are high Social connections cover the ways people interact with and relate to one another Time spent socialising / alone │ Type of social contact │ Network composition Quantity Social support │ Loneliness │ Relationship satisfaction Quality Loneliness and isolation are associated with … Poor health, premature mortality Lower productivity, unemployment Higher drop out rate Shapes voting behaviours Better health, happier and satisfied Job satisfaction, creativity Better academic performance Job opportunities, less crime, disaster response Supportive networks and strong social ties are associated with …
• 3.
  Growing understanding thatpolicy plays a role in shaping the conditions that encourage connection National policies and programmes International measurement and policy efforts Spanish Ministry of Social Rights & Agenda 2030 forthcoming national strategy Platform Against Loneliness in Austria Denmark National Partnership Against Loneliness Finnish Parliamentary Working Group on Strengthening Inclusion and Reducing Loneliness German Strategy against Loneliness Japanese Minister for Social Isolation and Loneliness Responding to Social Isolation and Loneliness across the Life Course in Korea Lithuanian initiatives to support social connections of the elderly Netherlands Loneliness Programme Sweden Standing together – A national strategy to tackle loneliness United Kingdom Minister for Loneliness and national strategy Social connections integrated in mental health or well-being initiatives United Nations Friends of the Chair Group on Social and Demographic Statistics (UN- FOCG-SD), Institutions and Relationships Measurement Framework
• 4.
  What does thereport do? • Most complete picture of the state of social connections across OECD countries, covering their quantity and quality • Collate data from high quality, large sample size datasets • Explore short- and medium-term trends • Disaggregate outcomes by population group to identify who is most vulnerable
• 5.
  Key findings inbrief • Social connections are strong for most people in OECD countries, but deprivations remain • Over the past decades, in-person socialising declined while remote connection with friends and family via digital technology increased • There are signs that the quality of connection has declined recently, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic • Men and young people have emerged as new at-risk groups • Older people, those who live alone, and those with fewer socio- economic resources are also more at risk for disconnection • Many interventions target lonely individuals – can community-level solutions work better?
• 6.
  Social connections arestrong in OECD countries, although deprivations remain 95% of respondents in 38 OECD countries interacted with friends or family who live nearby over the past week 90% of respondents in 38 OECD countries have someone to count on in times of need 51% of respondents in 21 European OECD countries never felt lonely over the past 4 weeks 10% of people in 38 OECD countries feel unsupported by others 8% of respondents in 22 European OECD countries report having no close friends 6% of respondents in 23 OECD countries felt lonely most or all of the time over the past 4 weeks Note: Data refer to 2022 or closest year. Source: OECD (2025), Social Connections and Loneliness in OECD Countries. OECD Publishing, Paris.
• 7.
  People socialise in-personless often than before, but are frequently in touch with friends and family via digital technology Get together with friends or family in person at least daily in an average year, OECD EU-EFTA 21 Contact friends or family remotely at least daily in an average year, OECD EU-EFTA 21 Source: OECD (2025), Social Connections and Loneliness in OECD Countries. OECD Publishing, Paris. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 2006 2015 2022 Family Friends 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 2006 2015 2022 Family Friends
• 8.
  The quality ofconnection may have worsened in recent years, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic Note: *To ensure sufficiently large sample sizes, for “no one to count on” 2022 refers to a pooled average of 2022-23 and 2018 refers to a pooled average of 2017-19. Source: OECD (2025), Social Connections and Loneliness in OECD Countries. OECD Publishing, Paris. Have no one to count on* (OECD 38) and dissatisfied with relationships (OECD EU-EFTA 22) Frequency of feeling lonely over the past four weeks (OECD EU-EFTA 22) 0% 5% 10% 15% 2018 2022 Dissatisfied with relationships No one to count on 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% All of the time Most of the time Some of the time A little of the time None of the time 2022 2018
• 9.
  Recent years haveseen the emergence of newly vulnerable groups, including younger men Percentage point change 2015 to 2022, get together with friends daily in an average year, OECD EU-EFTA 21 Percentage point change 2018 to 2022, felt lonely most or all of the time over the past 4 weeks, OECD EU-EFTA 22 Percentage point change 2018 to 2022, dissatisfied with personal relationships, OECD EU-EFTA 22 Note: Bars with striped pattern fill indicate that the percentage point change over time is not statistically significant. All other differences are significant. Source: OECD (2025), Social Connections and Loneliness in OECD Countries. OECD Publishing, Paris. -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 16 to 24 25 to 49 60 to 64 65+ Men Women -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 16 to 24 25 to 49 60 to 64 65+ Men Women -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 16 to 24 25 to 49 60 to 64 65+ Men Women
• 10.
  Older people, thosewho live alone, and those with fewer socio- economic resources are also more at risk for disconnection Note: The figure depicts the ratio of the population group outcome compared to the total population average outcome, for each of four selected social connections outcomes. Latest available year refers to 2022 aside from “no one to count on” which refers to a pooled average of 2022-23 for education, income and live alone outcomes; and a pooled average of 2017-23 for age and education outcomes. Source: OECD (2025), Social Connections and Loneliness in OECD Countries. OECD Publishing, Paris. 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 Older people Lower education Low income Unemployed Live alone Never get together with friends Lonely No one to count on Dissatisfied with personal relationships Better outcomes than total population average Worse outcomes than total population average
• 11.
  Policy can plana role in shaping the environmental factors that promote connection, but important questions remain • Effective policies involve the upstream factors that shape opportunities to connect with one another • Role of the built environment and public social spaces all the more important in the face of demographic transitions: aging populations, more people living alone, and our social lives increasingly moving online • Limited evidence base on effective policy interventions • Move from (lonely or disconnected) individual-targeting programmes to community-level interventions • Better and more consistent measurement can help fill evidence gaps
• 12.
  The role ofsocial infrastructure – physical spaces that lower the barrier to interactions – in promoting connection
• 13.
  Better understanding howdigital technology affects the quality of social interactions • Which types of digital technology use matter most for social connections? • Active communication | active participation and creation | passive interactions • Does the shift from real world to digital interactions matter for the quality of connection? • Tailored measurement linking how we socialise to our moods and affective states can shed light on this question • How effective are efforts to regulate young people’s use of social media and digital devices, in terms of promoting positive online interactions? • Expand outcomes considered beyond cognition, attention, academic performance to include assessments of social connection
• 14.
  The Centre onWell-being, Inclusion, Sustainability and Equal Opportunity (WISE): https://www.oecd.org/wise/ Subscribe to our newsletter: https://oe.cd/wellbeingnews Contact us: [email protected] Find out more