Cited by 207Health disparities and outcomesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesCOVID-19 and Mental Health

Groups 4 Health reduces loneliness and social anxiety in adults with psychological distress: Findings from a randomized controlled trial

Open access
Haslam, Catherine, Cruwys, Tegan, Chang, Melissa X. -L., Bentley, Sarah V., Haslam, S. Alexander, Dingle, Genevieve A., Jetten, Jolanda·2019·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Loneliness is a key public health issue for which various interventions have been trialed. However, few directly target the core feature of loneliness-lack of belonging. This is the focus of Groups 4 Health (G4H), a recently developed intervention that targets the development and maintenance of social group memberships to support health. METHOD: To investigate the efficacy of this intervention, a randomized controlled trial was conducted with participants (N = 120) assigned to G4H or treatment-as-usual (TAU) by computer software. Assessment of primary (loneliness) and secondary (depression, social anxiety, general practitioner visits, multiple group membership) outcomes was conducted at baseline and 2-month follow-up using mixed-model repeated-measures analyses. RESULTS: G4H produced a greater reduction in loneliness (d = -1.04) and social anxiety (d = -0.46) than TAU (d = -0.33 and d = 0.03, respectively). G4H was also associated with fewer general practitioner visits at follow-up (d = -0.33) and a stronger sense of belonging to multiple groups (d = 0.52) relative to TAU (d = 0.30 and d = 0.33, respectively). Depression declined significantly in both G4H (d = -0.63) and TAU (d = -0.34), but follow-up analyses showed this was greater in G4H among those not receiving adjunct psychopharmacological treatment and whose symptoms were milder. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that G4H can be a useful way to treat loneliness and highlight the importance of attending to group memberships when tackling this important social challenge. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/ccp0000427

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In the second trial, G4H led to significant improvements in loneliness (d = -1.04).

    “Again, G4H led to significant improvements in loneliness (d = -1.04),multiple group memberships (d = 0.52), depression (d = -0.63),and social anxiety (d = -0.46),while also reducing primary care utilization relative to the control condition (d = -0.33).”

    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 Haslam et al., 2019

    The Primary analysis reports a significant reduction in loneliness for G4H and a significant time-by-condition interaction. However, it gives the G4H effect size as d = -1.16, not the claimed d = -1.04. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the second trial, G4H reduced depression (d = -0.63).

    “Again, G4H led to significant improvements in loneliness (d = -1.04),multiple group memberships (d = 0.52), depression (d = -0.63),and social anxiety (d = -0.46),while also reducing primary care utilization relative to the control condition (d = -0.33).”

    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 Haslam et al., 2019

    The Primary analysis reports that depression symptoms decreased significantly within the G4H group, but gives d = -0.67, not -0.63. Symptoms also decreased in the treatment-as-usual group, and the difference in change between groups was not significant (p = .108). (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the second trial, G4H led to significant improvements in multiple group memberships (d = 0.52).

    “Again, G4H led to significant improvements in loneliness (d = -1.04),multiple group memberships (d = 0.52), depression (d = -0.63),and social anxiety (d = -0.46),while also reducing primary care utilization relative to the control condition (d = -0.33).”

    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 Haslam et al., 2019

    The ‘Multiple group memberships’ results (page unavailable) report a significant increase with G4H, but also a significant increase with treatment as usual. The paper gives d = 0.96 for G4H and d = 0.44 for treatment as usual; it reports 0.52 as the time-by-condition interaction coefficient (β), not as d. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the second trial, G4H reduced primary care utilization relative to control (d = -0.33).

    “Again, G4H led to significant improvements in loneliness (d = -1.04),multiple group memberships (d = 0.52), depression (d = -0.63),and social anxiety (d = -0.46),while also reducing primary care utilization relative to the control condition (d = -0.33).”

    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 Haslam et al., 2019

    The GP visits Results section reports a significant time-by-condition interaction: visits tended to decrease with G4H and increase with treatment as usual. But the decrease within G4H was not significant, and its reported effect size was d = -0.21, not d = -0.33. The Discussion describes the evidence on GP visits as mixed. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the second trial, G4H reduced social anxiety (d = -0.46).

    “Again, G4H led to significant improvements in loneliness (d = -1.04),multiple group memberships (d = 0.52), depression (d = -0.63),and social anxiety (d = -0.46),while also reducing primary care utilization relative to the control condition (d = -0.33).”

    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 Haslam et al., 2019

    The Social anxiety results report a significant reduction for G4H but not for treatment as usual. The reported G4H effect size is d = -0.53, not the claimed d = -0.46 (page unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Blackwell, & McDermott (2014). Test Review: Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 57, 246-248. doi: 10.1177/0034355213515305 rcb.sagepub.com · DOI
  2. Lifeline. (2016). 8 out of 10 Australians say loneliness is increasing: New survey [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.lifeline.org.au/about-lifeline/media-centre/media- releases/2016-articles/8-out-of-10-australians-say-loneliness-is-increasing.
  3. Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations (pp.15-40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Haslam, C., Cruwys, T., Chang, M. X. L., Bentley, S. V., Haslam, S. A., Dingle, G. A., & Jetten, J.
Affiliations
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Australian National University (AU)
Corresponding author
Haslam, Catherine
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2019-09
Volume
87
Issue
9
Pages
787-801
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2967246001
Cited by
207
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1
FWCI
20.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (acceptedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
Keywords
loneliness, social anxiety, social group membership, sense of belonging, psychological distress, depression, general practitioner visits, computer-based intervention
MeSH terms
Phobia, Social, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Anxiety Disorders, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Group Processes, Humans, Loneliness, Male, Middle Aged, Psychotherapy, Social Identification, Stress, Psychological, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult

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