• Loneliness among adults impacts health but interventions are underused. • Discrete choice experiments quantified preferences of older Australians (N=250). • Community engagement and weekly in-person sessions were strongly preferred. • High costs, virtual programs, and extensive travel reduced program desirability. • Preferences varied by income and health status, guiding tailored interventions. Loneliness in older adults contributes significantly to poor health outcomes and increased healthcare costs. Despite the growing prevalence of loneliness, many available interventions remain underutilised. To quantify older Australians’ preferences for loneliness support program features, their willingness to pay (WTP) for these features, and examine heterogeneity in preferences based on loneliness severity, socioeconomic, and mobility-related differences. A discrete choice experiment was conducted among 250 adults aged 65 years and older. Participants completed eight choice tasks comparing hypothetical programs characterised by six attributes. Preferences were analysed using an error-component logit model, and WTP was calculated. Respondents significantly preferred community engagement (WTP = AUD 14.47, p < 0.01) compared to peer support, whereas virtual reality was least preferred (WTP = −AUD 9.58, p = 0.009). Fully virtual programs were significantly less preferred than in-person options (WTP = −AUD 11.69, p = 0.019), with hybrid methods slightly preferred over fully virtual (WTP = −AUD 7.95, p < 0.01). Weekly interactions were strongly preferred over daily (WTP = AUD 16.93, p < 0.01) and monthly sessions (WTP = AUD 9.21, p = 0.005). Longer sessions (2 hours: WTP = AUD 5.08, p = 0.059; 4 hours: WTP = AUD 5.85, p = 0.037) were preferred over 30-minute sessions, while programs requiring significant travel (50+ km) or higher costs significantly decreased program desirability. Findings suggest interventions to reduce loneliness among older adults should prioritise affordable, regular, locally accessible, and community-oriented programs, tailored specifically according to socioeconomic and mobility-related differences.
Genie et al. (Sun,) studied this question.