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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review and Lived Experience Synthesis of Self-disclosure as an Active Ingredient in Interventions for Adolescents and Young Adults with Anxiety and Depression.Administration and policy in mental health · 2023Pooled it
- Interventions to improve well-being among children and youth aged 6-17 years during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.BMC medicine · 2023Pooled it
- A randomised feasibility trial comparing group and individual format GROUPS FOR HEALTH interventions for loneliness in people who experience psychosis.Psychology and psychotherapy · 2025Trial
- Understanding the Relationships Between Fear of COVID-19, Depression, Loneliness, and Life Satisfaction in Türkiye: Testing Mediation and Moderation Effects.Nursing open · 2025Article
- Psychological Interventions and Those With Elements of Positive Psychology for Child and Youth Mental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Literature Review, Lessons Learned, and Areas for Future Knowledge Dissemination.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2024Review
- The mediating role of social connectedness and hope in the relationship between group membership continuity and mental health problems in vulnerable young people.BJPsych open · 2023Article
- An open trial of VA CONNECT: Caring for Our Nation's Needs Electronically during the COVID-19 Transition.Psychiatry research communications · 2023Article
- Article
- "Exceptionally challenging time for all of us": Qualitative study of the COVID-19 experiences of partners of diplomatic personnel.PloS one · 2023Article
- In their own words: An Australian community sample's priority concerns regarding mental health in the context of COVID-19.PloS one · 2022Article
- A community-led intervention to build neighbourhood identification predicts better wellbeing following prolonged COVID-19 lockdowns.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.