ArticlePloS one2024
A brief but comprehensive three-item social connectedness screener for use in social risk assessment tools.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lifestyle Medicine Assessment Scores in Family Medicine Providers.American journal of lifestyle medicine · 2025Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 2014 IOM report "Capturing Social and Behavioral Domains and Measures in Electronic Health Records" described three subdomains of social relationships that affect patient health and well-being. However, most social risk screeners currently assess only one subdomain, frequency of social connections. We are proposing a three-item Brief Social Connectedness (SC) screener that additionally assesses risks in social/emotional support and loneliness/social isolation subdomains.
methodsFor this cross-sectional study, we used data from a 2021 Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) social risk survey for 2244 members ages 35-85 years. The survey included three validated questions that covered the SC subdomains (frequencies of social contacts with people they care about, feeling lonely/socially isolated, and getting enough social/emotional support). Variables representing moderate/high versus low risk were created for each subdomain. We used weighted data for bivariate analyses and modified log-Poisson regression models that adjusted for age, sex, race, and ethnicity to examine cross-sectional associations among the three subdomain risks, as well as with two structural SC risks, living alone and not being in a committed relationship. We then used modified log-Poisson regression models to study cross-sectional associations of these five SC variables with three single-item self-report measures of emotional health.
resultsIn regression models that included all five SC variables, loneliness/social isolation and social/emotional support risks were significantly associated with all three emotional health measures, while frequency of social contacts, living alone, and no committed relationship were not. However, low frequency of social contacts and no committed relationship significantly increased risk of often feeling lonely/socially isolated and lacking in social/emotional support.
conclusionsA three-item social connectedness screener that assessed risks of loneliness/social isolation, inadequate social/emotional support, and low frequency of social contacts provided more comprehensive information about emotional health risks than social connection frequency alone.
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.