Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39426996›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Efficacy of community groups as a social prescription for senior health-insights from a natural experiment during the COVID-19 lockdown.

Ryka C Chopra, Suma Chakrabarthi, Ishir Narayan, Suparna Chakraborty

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ryka C ChopraMission San Jose High School, 41717 Palm Ave, Fremont, CA, 94539, USA.
Suma ChakrabarthiDepartment of Radiology and Imaging, Peerless Hospital and B.K. Roy Research Center, 360 Panchsayar, Kolkata, 700094, India.
Ishir NarayanImperial College, Exhibition Rd., South Kensington, London, SW7 2AZ, UK.
Suparna ChakrabortyCollege of Arts and Sciences, University of San Francisco, 2130 Fulton St., San Francisco, CA, 94117, USA. schakraborty2@usfca.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Loneliness and associated physical and cognitive health decline among the aging population is an important medical concern, exacerbated in times of abnormal isolation like the 2020-2021 Covid-19 pandemic lockdown. In this backdrop, recent "social prescribing" based health policy initiatives such as community groups as a support structure for the aging population assumes great importance. In this paper, we evaluate and quantify the impact of such social prescribing policies in combatting loneliness and related health degeneration of the aging population in times of abnormal isolation. To this end, we conduct a natural experiment across a sample of 618 individuals aged 65 and over with varying access to community groups during the Covid-19 lockdown period. Using a random-effects, probit model to compare the differences in health outcomes of participants with access to community groups (target) with those without access (control), we find that the target group was 2.65 times less likely to suffer from loneliness as compared to the control group, along with lower incidences of reported cardiovascular and cognitive health decline. These initial findings provide preliminary support in favor of the interventional power of social prescription tools in mitigating loneliness and its consequent negative health impact on the aging population.

Indexed as

COVID-19LonelinessAgedAged, 80 and overCognitive DysfunctionFemaleHumansMalePandemicsQuarantineSARS-CoV-2Social IsolationCognitive declineCommunity groupsCovid-19LonelinessSocial isolationSocial prescription

Identifiers

PMID39426996
PMCPMC11490635

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.