Observational studyBMC public health2026
#KindnessbyPost: a pre-post, observational evaluation and feasibility study of a participatory public mental health intervention.
Observational study in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background#KindnessbyPost (KbP) is a "national kindness exchange". Participants send and receive a card by post to different, unknown people containing messages of good will. Previous evidence suggests participation in KbP may reduce loneliness and improve wellbeing. We evaluated the outcomes and administrative costs of KbP and explored the feasibility of collecting health economic measures for future research.
methodsWe used a pre-post, observational study design. Participants in two separate KbP exchanges in 2021 were invited to complete an online questionnaire. It included self-reported measures quantifying psychological wellbeing and loneliness, capability, and healthcare service use. Data were collected at three time-points per exchange: exchange-start (baseline), exchange-end (2 weeks), and 3 months post-exchange. Administrative cost data were obtained from the KbP programme organisers.
resultsAcross both exchanges, 1,285 responses were received from 1,142 participants. 143 participants completed questionnaires at both exchanges. In total, 623 (48%) participants completed follow-ups at exchange-end, and 414 (32%) at 3 months post-exchange. 70% (n = 789) of participants were aged between 31 and 60 years. 94% (n = 1,075) of participants were female and 95% (n = 1,078) were of white ethnicity. Compared to baseline, loneliness reduced and wellbeing increased at exchange end (change in loneliness = ‑0.21 units, 95% CI: -0.29 to -0.12; change in wellbeing = 0.68 units, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.88, respectively) and at 3 months post-exchange (loneliness change = -0.40 units, 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.30; wellbeing change = 1.01 units, 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.25, respectively). Capability scores (mean (SD) were calculated at baseline: 0.74 (0.18); exchange-end: 0.75 (0.19); and 3 months: 0.76 (0.18)) from available responses. The average administrative cost of delivering the intervention was £0.67-£0.87 per participant, not including in-kind contributions.
conclusionsWe observed a small, sustained improvement to people's wellbeing and loneliness following participation in a KbP exchange. Given the study design, causal attribution to KbP is uncertain. However, our results are consistent with previous evaluations and offer preliminary evidence that KbP may be an effective mental wellbeing intervention. Given its low administrative cost and highly scalable design, KbP could also be a cost-effective intervention for improving public mental health, warranting definitive evaluation of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in future. Our study also demonstrated the feasibility of collecting wellbeing and health economic outcome measures needed for future research.
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.