What is it about?
This study followed 1,673 adults in Japan who completed the same online survey every year from 2020 to 2024. We examined both how loneliness changed from year to year and how the same individuals moved between lonely and not-lonely states over five years. Loneliness was highest in 2021, declined in 2022, and then remained relatively stable through 2024. At the individual level, stable patterns were common: many participants were consistently lonely or consistently not lonely across all five waves. Because the study used a retained online panel, the findings should not be interpreted as nationally representative estimates for Japan.
Featured Image
Photo by Georgi Kalaydzhiev on Unsplash
Why is it important?
Annual prevalence figures can show whether loneliness is rising or falling, but they can hide important differences in individual experiences. Following the same people over five years showed that many participants had stable loneliness patterns even while annual prevalence changed. This helps distinguish short-term population-level fluctuations from persistent individual experiences of loneliness and shows the value of long-term follow-up. We also tested a stricter definition of loneliness: although the estimated prevalence was much lower, the 2021 peak and the predominance of stable over transitional patterns remained.
Perspectives
I hope this study encourages readers to look beyond a single annual loneliness rate. Our five-year panel suggests that an important question is not only how many people report loneliness at one point in time, but also who remains lonely, who recovers, and who becomes lonely over time. For future research and public health monitoring, following these different trajectories may provide a richer picture than relying on repeated snapshots alone.
Yoshihiko Kadoya
Hiroshima University
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: The dynamics of loneliness: A longitudinal exploration of transitions in Japan across the COVID-19 period, 2020–2024, PLOS One, September 2026, PLOS,
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0358269.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page







