Cited by 20Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesHealth and Well-being StudiesTreatment of Major Depression

Social support increases in the year after inpatient treatment of depression

McCall, W.Vaughn, Reboussin, Beth A., Rapp, Stephen R.·2001·Journal of Psychiatric Research

Abstract

High levels of social support are reported to protect against major depressive episode (MDE), but little is known about how social support changes during MDE. In this study, we measured total social support and four subtypes of social support in 75 psychiatric inpatients at the time of admission and one year later. The four subtypes of social support were tangible support, affectionate support, positive social interaction, and emotional/informational support. The majority of the sample were women (81%) with a mean age of 53.7+/-14.9 years. The severity of depressive symptoms improved over the year and was accompanied by a significant increase in two types of social support -- positive social interaction, and emotional/informational support. There was no significant change in tangible support or affectionate support. Linear regression showed that changes in all four subtypes were correlated with changes in depressive severity after adjustment for age, gender, and baseline clinical characteristics. While Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) scores also improved throughout the period of observation, and while the change in IADL scores were significantly associated with changes in social support, change in IADL scores were no longer significantly associated with change in social support after adjustment for change in depression severity. These results suggest that supportive relationships improve after psychiatric hospitalization for MDE, and these changes are best explained by reduction in depression severity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0022-3956(01)00009-7

Cites

26 of 26 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McCall, W. V., Reboussin, B. A., & Rapp, S. R.
Affiliations
  • Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist (US)
  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
Corresponding author
McCall, W.Vaughn
Venue
Journal of Psychiatric Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2001-03
Volume
35
Issue
2
Pages
105-110
ISSN
0022-3956 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1990857176
Cited by
20
References
24
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
0.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychiatric Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r24mh051552-05)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH51552, MH 01090)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Health and Well-being Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
social support, major depressive episode, inpatient care, psychiatric hospitalization, depression severity, tangible support, affectionate support, positive social interaction, instrumental activities of daily living, interpersonal relationships
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Adult, Aged, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Admission, Quality of Life, Social Support

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