ReviewInteractive journal of medical research2024
Social Cohesion and COVID-19: Integrative Review.
Review in Interactive journal of medical research, 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.
- The perceived COVID-19 pandemic risk and mental distress in China: the mediating role of interpersonal trust and the moderating role of social cohesion.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Social cohesion among healthcare workers during COVID-19: Qualitative research in Indonesia, Nepal, and Vietnam.SSM. Qualitative research in health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNations of considerable wealth and sophisticated health care infrastructures have experienced high rates of illness and death from COVID-19. Others with limited economic means and less developed health systems have achieved much lower burdens. To build a full understanding, an appraisal of the contribution of social relationships is necessary. Social cohesion represents a promising conceptual tool.
objectiveThis study aimed to examine scholarship on social cohesion during the COVID-19 pandemic: specifically, the constructions of social cohesion being deployed, the variables chosen for representation, and the effects of and on social cohesion being reported.
methodsThe PubMed, Scopus, and JSTOR databases were searched for relevant journal articles and gray literature. A total of 100 studies met the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and analyzed from these using spreadsheet software.
resultsSeveral constructions of social cohesion were found. These concerned interpersonal relationships, sameness and difference, collective action, perceptions or emotions of group members, structures and institutions of governance, locally or culturally specific versions, and hybrid or multidimensional models. Social cohesion was reported to be influential on health outcomes, health behaviors, resilience, and emotional well-being, but there was some potential for it to drive undesirable outcomes. Scholarship reported increases or decreases in quantitative measures of social cohesion, a temporary "rally round the flag" effect early in the pandemic, the variable impacts of policy on social cohesion, and changing interpersonal relationships due to the pandemic conditions. There are numerous issues with the literature that reflect the well-documented limitations of popular versions of the concept.
conclusionsSocial cohesion has been used to express a range of different aspects of relationships during the pandemic. It is claimed to promote better health outcomes, more engagement with positive health behaviors, and greater resilience and emotional well-being. The literature presents a range of ways in which it has been altered by the pandemic conditions. There are significant weaknesses to this body of knowledge that greatly impede its overall quality.
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.