CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 9Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesMental Health and Patient InvolvementHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Mutual support groups in rheumatic diseases: Effects and participants' perceptions

Savelkoul, Manon, de Witte, Luc P.·2004·Arthritis Care & Research
DOI 10.1002/art.20538
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: To investigate in a randomized controlled trial the effects of mutual support groups in rheumatic diseases on social network size, social skills, loneliness, daily functioning, and life satisfaction as well as to identify patients' perceptions of the support group. Methods: Participants were 112 patients with chronic rheumatic disorders affecting the joints. Data were collected with self‐report questionnaires and group interviews. Results: Effects have been found on social skills only. More specifically, mutual support groups at postintervention decreased distress in expressing negative feelings toward other people. This effect did not persist at the 6‐month followup evaluation, but at that time an increase in frequency in making one's wishes known to others was found. In patients who attended at least 5 of all 10 sessions, an increase in expressing positive feelings toward others was found at followup. Mutual support groups were evaluated positively. Conclusion: Mutual support groups are recommended for patients experiencing difficulties in social interactions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/art.20538

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • No intervention effect was observed between the coping group and either control group regarding loneliness at either time point.

    “No intervention effect was observed between the coping group and either control group regarding loneliness at either time point.”

    From Interventions targeting social isolation in older people: a systematic review (2011) · cites this paper as [56]

  • A coping group intervention for people with chronic rheumatic disorders reported improved functional health status compared with a waiting list control group, and improved action-directed coping compared with a mutual support control group at 13 weeks.

    “A coping group intervention [56] for people with chronic rheumatic disorders reported improved functional health status in comparison with a waiting list control group, and improved action-directed coping in comparison with a mutual support control group at 13 weeks.”

    From Interventions targeting social isolation in older people: a systematic review (2011) · cites this paper as [56]

  • Nineteen out of 23 (83%) participatory interventions were observed to have beneficial effects on at least one outcome compared with only four out of nine (44%) non-participatory interventions.

    “Nineteen out of the 23 (83%) participatory interventions were observed to have beneficial effects on at least one outcome [13,52-56,60,63,65-70,73-76,81] compared with only four out of nine (44%) non-participatory interventions [59,71,78,79].”

    From Interventions targeting social isolation in older people: a systematic review (2011) · cites this paper as [56]

  • With the addition of two studies, the proportion of effective group interventions rose to 79% (15 out of 19), and with the addition of one study, the proportion of effective one-to-one interventions rose to 55% (6 out of 11).

    “The proportion of effective group interventions rose to 79% (15 out of 19) with the addition of two studies [56,70], and the proportion of effective one-to-one interventions rose to 55% (6 out of 11) with the addition of one study [54].”

    From Interventions targeting social isolation in older people: a systematic review (2011) · cites this paper as [56]

  • Twelve out of 15 (80%) support interventions reported beneficial effects.

    “Twelve out of the 15 (80%) support interventions reported beneficial effects [52-56,63,66,68,69,73,75,76].”

    From Interventions targeting social isolation in older people: a systematic review (2011) · cites this paper as [56]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Savelkoul, M., & de Witte, L. P.
Affiliations
Maastricht University (NL)
Venue
Arthritis Care & Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-08-05
Volume
51
Issue
4
Pages
605-608
ISSN
  • 0893-7524 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-0123
DOI
10.1002/art.20538
OpenAlex
W1596234342
Cited by
9
References
17
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Arthritis Care & Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
self-help groups, rheumatic diseases, social skills, loneliness, social network size, daily functioning, life satisfaction, patient perspectives, social interaction difficulties
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude to Health, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Perception, Surveys and Questionnaires, Rheumatic Diseases, Self-Help Groups, Social Behavior, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review