Cited by 105Aging and Gerontology ResearchHealth disparities and outcomesAging, Health, and Disability

Breaking the cycle of loneliness? Psychological effects of a friendship enrichment program for older women

Open access
Martina, C. M. S., Stevens, N. L.·2006·Aging & Mental Health

Abstract

The present study examines effects of participation in the friendship enrichment program, an intervention that is designed to stimulate improvement in friendship, self-esteem and subjective well-being, as well as reduction in loneliness among older women. The intervention group was compared to a control group of women who were interested in the program or in improving their friendships. All respondents had been studied at three points in time: at a baseline, prior to the program; three months later, and 9-10 months after baseline. The results indicate that the program was successful in attracting lonely older women who were willing to work on their friendships. Many participants reported improvement in the quantity and quality of their friendships. The program was moderately successful in stimulating improvement in subjective well-being and awareness of the need for an active stance toward achieving goals in social relations, especially in friendship. Loneliness among the participants was reduced, but it also declined in the control group, and both groups continued to experience loneliness. One conclusion is that an effective intervention to help older women reduce their loneliness should be multi-dimensional focusing not only on friendship but also on other personal and situational factors contributing to loneliness.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13607860600637893

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • A befriending programme for older women reported success in attracting lonely older people but not in improving well-being.

    “One of these programmesfocused on older womenreported success in attracting lonely older people but not in improving the well-being of participants (Martina and Stevens 2006).”

    From Social isolation, loneliness and health in old age: a scoping review (2017) · cites this paper as Martina and Stevens 2006

  • Research indicates that indices of social connectedness are modifiable among older adults using social interventions, including group psychotherapy, art/recreational therapy, and peer support.

    “Research indicates that indices of social connectedness are modifiable among older adults using social interventions, including group psychotherapy [83], art/recreational therapy [84,85,86,87], and peer support [88].”
  • In the educational friendship programme study, there was no observed reduction in participants' loneliness, no improvement in assertiveness, and a non-significant trend towards improved self-esteem.

    “There was no observed reduction in participants' loneliness, no improvement in assertiveness and a non-significant trend towards improved self-esteem.”
  • An educational friendship programme for older women reported that, at six months, participants developed more new friendships compared with a control group and demonstrated improved positive and negative affect.

    “An evaluation of an educational friendship programme for older women [75] reported that, at six months, participants developed more new friendships in comparison with a control group and demonstrated improved positive and negative affect.”
  • Seven out of 12 studies (58%) that recruited explicitly targeted participants reported positive effects on outcomes compared with 16 out of 20 (80%) studies with no explicit targeting.

    “Seven out of 12 studies (58%) that recruited explicitly targeted participants reported positive effects on outcomes [13,56,67,71,75,78,79], compared with 16/20 (80%) studies with no explicit targeting [52-55,59,60,63,65,66,68-70,73,74,76,81].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 36 · Cited by 105

Authors
Martina, C. M. S., & Stevens, N. L.
Affiliations
Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Corresponding author
Martina, C. M. S.
Venue
Aging & Mental Health
Published
2006-09-01
Volume
10
Issue
5
Pages
467-475
ISSN
  • 1360-7863 (ISSN-L)
  • 1364-6915
OpenAlex
W2098713693
Cited by
105
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 7
FWCI
5.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Aging & Mental Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • ZonMw
  • Radboud Universiteit
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Aging, Health, and Disability
Keywords
loneliness, older women, friendship quality, self-esteem, subjective well-being, interpersonal relationships, intervention effectiveness, aging
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Loneliness, Male, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Self Concept, United States, Friends

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