Trial reportJournal of affective disorders2023
Comparative effectiveness of two versions of a caring contacts intervention in healthcare providers, staff, and patients for reducing loneliness and mental distress: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of affective disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Piloting an ecological momentary assessment block design to examine suicide outcomes and mechanisms in a caring contacts trial.Internet interventions · 2026Article
- Preliminary Support for a Technology-Enhanced Suicide Prevention Intervention for College Students: Mixed Methods Preimplementation Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Understanding the time period preceding psychiatric hospitalization for moderate to severe suicidal ideation: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Exploring the Impact of the Caring Contacts Intervention on the Stress and Distress of Veterans and Service Members: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Sociodemographic Factors and Mental Health in Health Care Professionals and Patients During COVID-19.Rural mental health · 2025Article
- Comparative effectiveness of two-way caring contacts texts vs one-way caring contacts texts vs enhanced usual care to reduce suicidal behavior in adolescents and adults: Protocol for the SPRING pragmatic randomized controlled trial.Contemporary clinical trials · 2025Article
- Interventions in ambulatory healthcare settings to reduce social isolation among adults aged 18-64: a systematic review.BJGP open · 2024Article
- Acceptability of linking individual credit, financial, and public records data to healthcare records for suicide risk machine learning models.JAMIA open · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCaring Contacts can effectively reduce suicide ideation, attempts, and death. In published clinical trials, Caring Contacts were sent by someone who knew the recipient. At scale, Caring Contacts programs rarely introduce the recipient and sender. It is not known whether receiving Caring Contacts from someone unknown is as effective as messages from someone the recipient has met.
methodsPragmatic randomized controlled trial comparing Caring Contacts with (CC+) versus without an introductory phone call (CC). Recruitment occurred January-July 2021, with outcomes assessed at 6 months. Participants were primary care patients or healthcare providers/staff reporting adverse mental health outcomes on a qualifying survey. Participants were sent 11 standardized caring text messages over 6 months; when participants replied, they received personalized unscripted responses. CC+ calls were semi-structured. The primary outcome was loneliness (NIH Toolkit).
resultsParticipants included 331 patients (mean [SD] age: 45.5 [16.4], 78.9 % female) and 335 healthcare providers/staff (mean [SD] age: 40.9 [11.8], 86.6 % female). There were no significant differences in loneliness at 6 months by treatment arm in either stratum. In patients, mean (SD) loneliness was 61.9 (10.7) in CC, and 60.8 (10.3) in CC+, adjusted mean difference of -1.0 (95 % CI: -3.0, 1.0); p-value = 0.31. In providers/staff, mean (SD) loneliness was 61.2 (11) in CC, and 61.3 (11.1) in CC+, adjusted mean difference of 0.2 (95 % CI: -1.8, 2.2); p-value = 0.83. LIMITATIONS: Study population was 93 % white which may limit generalizability.
conclusionsIncluding an initial phone call added operational complexity without significantly improving the effectiveness of a Caring Contacts program.
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.