ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
The perceived COVID-19 pandemic risk and mental distress in China: the mediating role of interpersonal trust and the moderating role of social cohesion.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- What drives urban pandemic control performance in China? A configurational analysis of the resource-performance paradox.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: An increasing number of studies have highlighted the consequences of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the mechanisms through which it inflicts harm. However, few have examined the relationship between perceived pandemic risk and mental distress from an interpersonal perspective. Drawing on the stress system model, trust theory, social-support theory, and exchange-emotion-cohesion theory, the present study investigates whether perceived pandemic risk is positively associated with mental distress, whether different types of interpersonal trust mediate this relationship, and whether social cohesion moderates this mediating process. Methods: The theoretical model was tested using data from 18,278 Chinese residents (Mage = 32.63 years, standard deviation = 13.85) between March and June 2020. Participants in this cross-sectional study completed a named survey assessing their perceived pandemic risk, different types of interpersonal trust, mental distress, and social cohesion. Correlational and moderated mediation analyses examined how perceived risk relates to mental distress via interpersonal trust, while estimating social cohesion's moderated role in this pathway. Results: Perceived pandemic risk was positively associated with mental distress. Interpersonal trust among non-strangers (family, friends and colleagues) partially mediated this link, and social cohesion moderated the trust-to-distress pathway specifically for friends and colleagues trust. In contexts of lower social cohesion, the indirect effect through friends and colleagues trust was stronger, indicating greater vulnerability to mental distress. Discussion: These findings extend research on pandemic-related mental distress by identifying acquaintance trust in ordinary friends and colleagues as a key interpersonal mechanism and demonstrating that cohesive community contexts can buffer the psychological consequences of eroded trust. Practitioners should consider leveraging social relationships in public-health crisis responses.
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.