ArticleJournal of psychosomatic research2021
Multiple group membership, social network size, allostatic load and well-being: A mediation analysis.
Article in Journal of psychosomatic research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multiple teams, multiple projects, multiple groups at the intersection of (multiple) research fields: A bibliometric study.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Pooled it
- Stability and change in social network size over four decades: an age-period-cohort analysis.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2026Article
- Multiple Group Membership and Cardiovascular Reactivity in Women: Moderation by the Number of Groups Perceived as Targets of Discrimination.Psychophysiology · 2026Article
- Extending the ecological model of distress to social functioning among refugees and asylum-seekers.Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 2026Article
- Allostatic load profiles, resilience, and psychosocial adaptation in young adults.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Effect of online and offline social network group clusters on life satisfaction across age groups.Heliyon · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study examined whether social network size and allostatic load (AL) mediated the association between multiple group membership (MGM) and future physical and psychological well-being.
methodsA longitudinal design was used and data from 1026 healthy participants on the relevant variables was extracted from Wave 2(2010-12), Wave 3 (2011-2013) (for baseline MGM, social network size and AL) and Wave 9 (2017-19) (for well-being at follow-up) of the Understanding Society UK population-based dataset.
resultsMGM was not directly associated with future well-being, but both social network size, β = 0.06, t = 2.02, p = .04, and AL, β = -0.06, t = -2.05, p = .04, were associated with physical but not psychological well-being at follow-up. Those who had higher numbers of friends had better physical well-being, and those who had lower AL risk scores had better physical well-being at follow-up. However, MGM was indirectly associated with physical well-being through social network size, and AL such that those reporting higher MGM, reported a greater number of friends which was associated with a lower AL and then future physical well-being, β = 0.004, CI [0.001., 0.0129]. This was not evident for psychological well-being. This mediation withstood adjustment for confounding factors (e.g. age, gender, marital status lifestyle factors).
conclusionThe present study extends findings on the existing social relationships and social cure literature and our findings are discussed in relation to the social cure hypothesis.
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.