The Association of Social Support and Loneliness with Symptoms of Depression, Anxiety, and Posttraumatic Stress during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Meta-Analysis

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background: Research suggests that changes in social support and loneliness have affected mental disorder symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there are a lack of studies comparing the robustness of these associations. Aims: The aims were to estimate the strength of the associations of loneliness and social support with symptoms of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2022) in the general population. Method: The method entailed a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of quantitative studies. Results: Seventy-three studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled correlations of the effect size of the association of loneliness with symptoms of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress were 0.49, 0.40, and 0.38, respectively. The corresponding figures for social support were 0.29, 0.19, and 0.18, respectively. Subgroup analyses revealed that the strength of some associations could be influenced by the sociodemographic characteristics of the study samples, such as age, gender, region, and COVID-19 stringency index, and by methodological moderators, such as sample size, collection date, methodological quality, and the measurement scales. Conclusions: Social support had a weak association with mental disorder symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic while the association with loneliness was moderate. Strategies to address loneliness could be highly effective in reducing the impact of the pandemic on social relationships and mental health.

Related collections

Most cited references 134

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew J L Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2024)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

0 comments Cited 12957 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

Julian P. T. Higgins, Simon Thompson, Jonathan Deeks … (2003)

0 comments Cited 9763 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7.

Robert L Spitzer, Kurt Kroenke, Janet B W Williams … (2006)

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common mental disorders; however, there is no brief clinical measure for assessing GAD. The objective of this study was to develop a brief self-report scale to identify probable cases of GAD and evaluate its reliability and validity. A criterion-standard study was performed in 15 primary care clinics in the United States from November 2004 through June 2005. Of a total of 2740 adult patients completing a study questionnaire, 965 patients had a telephone interview with a mental health professional within 1 week. For criterion and construct validity, GAD self-report scale diagnoses were compared with independent diagnoses made by mental health professionals; functional status measures; disability days; and health care use. A 7-item anxiety scale (GAD-7) had good reliability, as well as criterion, construct, factorial, and procedural validity. A cut point was identified that optimized sensitivity (89%) and specificity (82%). Increasing scores on the scale were strongly associated with multiple domains of functional impairment (all 6 Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey scales and disability days). Although GAD and depression symptoms frequently co-occurred, factor analysis confirmed them as distinct dimensions. Moreover, GAD and depression symptoms had differing but independent effects on functional impairment and disability. There was good agreement between self-report and interviewer-administered versions of the scale. The GAD-7 is a valid and efficient tool for screening for GAD and assessing its severity in clinical practice and research.