Groups 4 Health protects against unanticipated threats to mental health: Evaluating two interventions during COVID-19 lockdown among young people with a history of depression and loneliness
Open accessAbstract
Decades of research indicate that when social connectedness is threatened, mental health is at risk. However, extant interventions to tackle loneliness have had only modest success, and none have been trialled under conditions of such threat. 174 young people with depression and loneliness were randomised to one of two evidence-based treatments: cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) or Groups 4 Health (G4H), an intervention designed to increase social group belonging. Depression, loneliness, and well-being outcomes were evaluated at one-year follow-up; COVID-19 lockdown restrictions were imposed partway through follow-up assessments. This provided a quasi-experimental test of the utility of each intervention in the presence (lockdown group) and absence (control group) of a threat to social connectedness. At one-year follow-up, participants in lockdown reported significantly poorer wellbeing than controls who completed follow-up before lockdown, t(152)=2.41, p=.017. Although both CBT and G4H led to symptom improvement, the benefits of G4H were more robust following an unanticipated threat to social connectedness for depression (χ2(16)=31.35, p=.001), loneliness (χ2(8)=21.622, p=.006), and wellbeing (χ2(8)=22.938, p=.003). Because the COVID-19 lockdown was unanticipated, this analysis represents an opportunistic use of available data. As a result, we could not measure the specific impact of restrictions on participants, such as reduced income, degree of isolation, or health-related anxieties. G4H delivered one year prior to COVID-19 lockdown offered greater protection than CBT against relapse of loneliness and depression symptoms. Implications are discussed with a focus on how these benefits might be extended to other life stressors and transitions.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Social support was found to be superior to CBT for depression in one study.
“Social support was found to be superior to CBT in one study for depression [48]”
From Psychological Interventions and Those With Elements of Positive Psychology for Child and Youth Mental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Literature Review, Lessons Learned, and Areas for Future Knowledge Dissemination (2024) · cites this paper as [48]
The Results (Evaluation of H2; page unavailable) report that, under COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, CBT recipients were more vulnerable to a relapse in depression than G4H recipients, although none of the simple comparisons was significant. The Discussion says G4H was particularly advantageous in that context, not that social support was generally superior to CBT for depression; both treatments reduced depression relative to baseline. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredEvidence for G4H's efficacy is already well established from four published studies of three controlled trials.
“the evidence for G4H's efficacy is already well established from four published studies of three controlled trials”
From Acceptability and Feasibility of an Intervention to Enhance Social Group Belonging: Evidence From Three Trials of Groups 4 Health (2022) · cites this paper as Cruwys et al., 2021
A few studies had a social support component, including one comparing CBT with social support informed by the social identity framework, another including social support with DBT and other positive psychology principles, and a third including social support with mindfulness.
“A few of the studies had a social support component, with one comparing CBT with social support informed by the social identity framework [48], another including social support with DBT and other positive psychology principles [65], and a third including social support with mindfulness [57].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 55 · Cited by 37
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Lenth R. Singmann H. Love J. Buerkner P. Herve M. Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means R Package Version 1.15 34 1 2020 216 221 10.1080/00031305.1980.10483031>.License · DOI
- Authors
- Cruwys, T., Haslam, C., Rathbone, J. A., Williams, E., & Haslam, S. A.
- Affiliations
- Australian National University (AU)
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Cruwys, Tegan
- Venue
- Journal of Affective Disorders
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-12
- Volume
- 295
- Pages
- 316-322
- ISSN
- 0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8413117
- OpenAlex
- W3195060187
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 3.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Australian Rotary Health
- National Health and Medical Research Council (1173270)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Keywords
- loneliness, depression, COVID-19 lockdown, social connectedness, cognitive behavioral therapy, youth, well-being, relapse prevention, life events
- MeSH terms
- COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adolescent, Communicable Disease Control, Depression, Humans, Loneliness, Mental Health
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