Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34488085›Full record

Trial reportJournal of affective disorders2021

Groups 4 Health protects against unanticipated threats to mental health: Evaluating two interventions during COVID-19 lockdown among young people with a history of depression and loneliness.

Tegan Cruwys, Catherine Haslam, Joanne A Rathbone, Elyse Williams, S Alexander Haslam

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of affective disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tegan CruwysResearch School of Psychology, The Australian National University, Australia. Electronic address: tegan.cruwys@anu.edu.au.
Catherine HaslamSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Australia.
Joanne A RathboneSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Australia.
Elyse WilliamsSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Australia.
S Alexander HaslamSchool of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Australia.
The University of Queensland · AUAustralian National University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecades of research indicate that when social connectedness is threatened, mental health is at risk. However, extant interventions to tackle loneliness have had only modest success, and none have been trialled under conditions of such threat.

method174 young people with depression and loneliness were randomised to one of two evidence-based treatments: cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) or Groups 4 Health (G4H), an intervention designed to increase social group belonging. Depression, loneliness, and well-being outcomes were evaluated at one-year follow-up; COVID-19 lockdown restrictions were imposed partway through follow-up assessments. This provided a quasi-experimental test of the utility of each intervention in the presence (lockdown group) and absence (control group) of a threat to social connectedness.

resultsAt one-year follow-up, participants in lockdown reported significantly poorer wellbeing than controls who completed follow-up before lockdown, t(152)=2.41, p=.017. Although both CBT and G4H led to symptom improvement, the benefits of G4H were more robust following an unanticipated threat to social connectedness for depression (χ LIMITATIONS: Because the COVID-19 lockdown was unanticipated, this analysis represents an opportunistic use of available data. As a result, we could not measure the specific impact of restrictions on participants, such as reduced income, degree of isolation, or health-related anxieties.

conclusionsG4H delivered one year prior to COVID-19 lockdown offered greater protection than CBT against relapse of loneliness and depression symptoms. Implications are discussed with a focus on how these benefits might be extended to other life stressors and transitions.

Indexed as

COVID-19LonelinessAdolescentCommunicable Disease ControlDepressionHumansMental HealthSARS-CoV-2Cognitive behaviour therapyDepressionGroup membershipsSocial identitySocial isolationWell-being

Identifiers

PMID34488085
PMCPMC8413117
OpenAlexW3195060187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.