Loneliness, Health, and Healthcare: What the Evidence Tells Us

Loneliness is not just a social issue. It shows up in data, in service demand, and in the ways people use healthcare. By the time it is visible, the person affected has usually been managing it alone for some time. 

Three recent studies quantify this relationship and confirm its relevance to both workforce wellbeing and healthcare planning. 
Sirois and Owens (2023) demonstrate that loneliness is associated with increased GP attendance. 
Morrish, Spencer and Medina-Lara (2025) show that people who experience loneliness also report poorer health, lower wellbeing, and higher service use. 
Akinyemi et al. (2025) show that loneliness is linked to depression and to higher numbers of poor mental- and physical-health days. 

Together, these studies show that loneliness and poor health occur together across systems and populations. The direction of causation is not established, but the relationship itself is consistent and significant. 

Where Loneliness and Healthcare Intersect 

Sirois and Owens (2023) analysed data from more than 113,000 people across 23 studies. They found that individuals who report loneliness make more GP visits than those who do not. The correlation is modest but consistent and independent of age, healthcare setting, or how loneliness is defined. When GP visits are verified through medical records rather than self-report, the association strengthens. 

The reason for this pattern remains uncertain. It may be that loneliness contributes to poorer health, that people attend more often because the GP appointment provides dependable contact, or that both factors play a role. Regardless of mechanism, loneliness is visible in primary-care utilisation data. It is measurable and repeated across studies, making primary care a clear point of observation for the wider system. 

Loneliness, Health Status, and Functioning 

Morrish, Spencer and Medina-Lara (2025) analysed data from more than 23,000 UK adults, examining loneliness alongside health status, wellbeing, and NHS cost data. People who reported feeling lonely “often” also reported higher mental distress, lower wellbeing, poorer physical and mental functioning, and greater healthcare use. The difference in annual NHS costs between those who are often lonely and those who are not is approximately £850 per person. 

Because all data were collected at one point in time, the study cannot confirm whether loneliness leads to poor health or vice versa. What it does confirm is that the two conditions appear together. For anyone responsible for workforce wellbeing or population-health outcomes, this overlap matters. Those who experience loneliness are also those reporting poorer health and higher service use. 

Loneliness, Depression, and Daily Functioning 

Akinyemi et al. (2025) analysed national survey data from nearly 50,000 US adults. People who reported feeling lonely “always,” compared with those who “never” felt lonely, had a five-fold higher rate of depression (50.2 % versus 9.7 %), reported eleven more poor mental-health days per month, and five more poor physical-health days. 

The study measures correlation rather than cause, but the pattern is clear. Loneliness identifies individuals who are more likely to experience both mental- and physical-health difficulties. In population terms, it is a reliable indicator of wider risk. 

What the Evidence Shows 

Across these studies: 

1. Loneliness is associated with increased healthcare use, particularly in primary care (Sirois & Owens, 2023). 

2. People who experience loneliness report poorer health, lower wellbeing, and reduced functioning (Morrish et al., 2025). 

3. Loneliness co-occurs with depression and poor-health days at high rates (Akinyemi et al., 2025). 

4. These findings are consistent across countries, healthcare systems, and research methods. 

The evidence base is strong. Direction of causality remains open, but the pattern is consistent enough to inform policy and prevention. Loneliness and poor health appear together at scale, and that alone justifies targeted early intervention. 

The System Gap 

When loneliness and health problems intersect, people present to healthcare. General practice becomes the point of contact not because it is the right setting but because it is structured, accessible, and available. 

There is no formal, non-clinical layer of support that engages people when loneliness first appears, before it converts into health deterioration or service demand. Community programmes exist, but they rely on confidence and participation, both of which are often reduced when loneliness takes hold. Healthcare remains the only guaranteed route. 

People use it because it works. Appointments are certain, attendance is accepted, and no social explanation is required. In the absence of other infrastructure, the health system absorbs the impact of loneliness by default. 

What Prevention Requires 

Effective prevention requires structure. Awareness campaigns and signposting do not fill the gap. What is needed is dependable, one-to-one contact that is non-clinical, immediate, and does not rely on self-referral or diagnosis. It must reach people before symptoms, not after. 

The data demonstrate that loneliness and poor health consistently appear together, and that lonely people have higher costs and poorer outcomes. Creating an earlier, non-clinical point of contact is therefore a system requirement, not an optional enhancement. Addressing loneliness is part of managing demand. 

Sacana’s Approach 

Sacana provides structured, accessible, one-to-one conversation delivered by trained Matrons over a secure video platform. The service is non-clinical, immediate, and does not require referral, diagnosis, or threshold. Conversations follow the Sacana Conversation Arc, a defined structure that maintains safety and focus while giving individuals space to talk. 

Sacana operates at the top of the prevention pathway. It does not diagnose or treat; it provides consistent, professional contact before deterioration occurs. The model integrates directly with employer wellbeing frameworks, local-authority strategies, and public-health infrastructure. 

• For employers: reduced absenteeism and presenteeism, improved retention, and a more stable workforce. 

• For public services: an early, structured alternative for people who need to talk before they reach clinical thresholds, reducing GP demand and delaying escalation. 

• For individuals: immediate, private, and non-judgemental contact that does not depend on confidence or self-disclosure. 

Sacana fills the space between informal support, which assumes capacity, and formal healthcare, which intervenes only once problems are established. 

Why This Matters Now 

The evidence base is clear. Loneliness is measurable, its impact on health and wellbeing is documented, and its cost to systems is quantifiable. What is missing is the infrastructure to act earlier. 

Sacana exists to provide that infrastructure: structured, accessible, one-to-one conversation before loneliness becomes illness or dependency. The association between loneliness and health is established. The human and financial costs are known. The practical solution is to intervene earlier and more appropriately. 

Talk. Connect. Thrive.

References 

Sirois, F. M., & Owens, J. (2023). A meta-analysis of loneliness and use of primary health care. Health Psychology Review, 17(2), 193-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2021.1986417 

Morrish, N., Spencer, A., & Medina-Lara, A. (2025). How loneliness relates to health, wellbeing, quality of life, and healthcare resource utilisation and costs across multiple age groups in the UK. PLOS One, 20(9), e0327671. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327671 

Akinyemi, O., Abdulrazaq, W., Fasokun, M., Ogunyankin, F., Ikugbayigbe, S., Nwosu, U., et al. (2025). The impact of loneliness on depression, mental health, and physical well-being. PLOS One, 20(7), e0319311. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0319311