Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33548056›Full record

Trial reportActa psychiatrica Scandinavica2021

Is social support pre-treatment associated with prognosis for adults with depression in primary care?

Joshua E J Buckman, Rob Saunders, Ciaran O'Driscoll, Zachary D Cohen, Joshua Stott, Gareth Ambler, Simon Gilbody, Steven D Hollon, Tony Kendrick, Edward Watkins and 6 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Training emotion recognition in depression-An experimental study.The British journal of clinical psychology · 2025
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.

Joshua E J BuckmanCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE), Research Department of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2281-0907
Rob SaundersCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE), Research Department of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7077-8729
Ciaran O'DriscollCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE), Research Department of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Zachary D CohenDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Joshua StottCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE), Research Department of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Gareth AmblerStatistical Science, University College London, London, UK.
Simon GilbodyDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Steven D HollonDepartment of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Tony KendrickPrimary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Edward WatkinsDepartment of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Nicola WilesCentre for Academic Mental Health, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
David KesslerCentre for Academic Primary Care, Department of Population Health Science, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Nomsa ChariDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Ian R WhiteMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK.
Glyn LewisDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Stephen PillingCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE), Research Department of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Health Data Research UK · GBAt Bristol · GBUniversity College London · GBMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL · GBRoyal Statistical Society · GBSt Pancras Hospital · GBUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Exeter · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBUniversity of York · GBVanderbilt University · US

Funding

Medical Research Council G0200243Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/06Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/21Wellcome Trust 201292Wellcome Trust 201292/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDepressed patients rate social support as important for prognosis, but evidence for a prognostic effect is lacking. We aimed to test the association between social support and prognosis independent of treatment type, and the severity of depression, and other clinical features indicating a more severe illness.

methodsIndividual patient data were collated from all six eligible RCTs (n = 2858) of adults seeking treatment for depression in primary care. Participants were randomized to any treatment and completed the same baseline assessment of social support and clinical severity factors. Two-stage random effects meta-analyses were conducted.

resultsSocial support was associated with prognosis independent of randomized treatment but effects were smaller when adjusting for depressive symptoms and durations of depression and anxiety, history of antidepressant treatment, and comorbid panic disorder: percentage decrease in depressive symptoms at 3-4 months per z-score increase in social support = -4.14(95%CI: -6.91 to -1.29). Those with a severe lack of social support had considerably worse prognoses than those with no lack of social support: increase in depressive symptoms at 3-4 months = 14.64%(4.25% to 26.06%).

conclusionsOverall, large differences in social support pre-treatment were associated with differences in prognostic outcomes. Adding the Social Support scale to clinical assessments may be informative, but after adjusting for routinely assessed clinical prognostic factors the differences in prognosis are unlikely to be of a clinically important magnitude. Future studies might investigate more intensive treatments and more regular clinical reviews to mitigate risks of poor prognosis for those reporting a severe lack of social support.

Indexed as

Anxiety DisordersDepressionAdultHumansPrimary Health CarePrognosisSocial Supportdepressionindividual patient data meta-analysisprognosissocial supporttreatment outcome

Identifiers

PMID33548056
PMCPMC7610633
OpenAlexW3128369269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.