ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Exploring mutual aid-based community engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study of community group buying in China.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. 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.
- What drives urban pandemic control performance in China? A configurational analysis of the resource-performance paradox.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- The impact of online learning community participation on college students' psychological capital: the mediating role of academic identity and the moderating role of psychological resource transformation.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
Background: Community mutual aid is a form of community engagement involving multiple stakeholders working together to provide both material and emotional support. During the COVID-19 pandemic in China, community group buying (CGB) exhibited distinct features of community mutual aid, reflected in its flexible product supply and spontaneous neighborhood support. However, the mechanisms driving the emergence of such mutual aid practices remain insufficiently explored. Methods: This study employed a qualitative research design combining ethnographic observation and interpretive case analysis to examine whether, why, and how CGB in China transformed into community mutual aid practices during the lockdown, as well as the outcomes of this transformation. Data were collected primarily through semi-structured interviews ( Results: The analysis identified six interrelated dimensions shaping the transformation of CGB into community mutual aid: disaster risk, community networks, participation pathways, psychological motivations, community resilience, and social inequality. Disaster risk acted as an external catalyst that activated social capital, while pre-existing community networks served as internal driving forces-together forming the prerequisites for this transformation. Participation pathways and psychological motivations further facilitated the reproduction of structural and relational social capital, constituting the core process of transformation. This transformation strengthened community resilience by reinforcing trust, reciprocity, and collective efficacy, but also revealed the "dark side" of social capital, as digital divides and unequal access to resources deepened social inequality. Conclusion: Our findings offer new insights into CGB-based mutual aid in context of China's crisis. This study not only contributes to the theoretical understanding of mutual aid-based community engagement, but also offers practical insights for mobilizing social capital in future public health emergencies. Further research should investigate the applicability of the CGB model across diverse sociocultural contexts and assess its long-term impact.
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.