Cited by 86Aging, Health, and DisabilityAging and Gerontology ResearchHealth, psychology, and well-being

Improved self-management ability and well-being in older women after a short group intervention

Open access
Kremers, I. P., Steverink, N., Albersnagel, F. A., Slaets, J. P. J.·2006·Aging & Mental Health

Abstract

In the present randomized controlled trial (RCT) it was investigated whether single women, 55 years of age and older, improved with regard to self-management ability, well-being, and social and emotional loneliness after having participated in a newly designed self-management group intervention based on the Self-Management of Well-being (SMW) theory. The expected mediating effect of self-management ability on well-being was not found. Although self-management ability, well-being and loneliness improved significantly in the intervention group immediately after the intervention, and also remained at this improved level after six months, there was also improvement in the control group after six months, rendering the longer-term differences between the groups non-significant. It can, however, be concluded that, although the longer-term effectiveness could not be proven, this SMW theory-based intervention seems to be useful in supporting older women to improve their self-management ability and well-being.

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 · 10.1080/13607860600841206

Cites

31 of 31 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 self-management group study, it was unclear whether the authors were reporting between-group or within-group results, so the data should be interpreted cautiously.

    “However, it was unclear whether the authors were reporting between-group or within-group results; hence the data should be interpreted cautiously.”
  • In the self-management group study, participants reported improved social loneliness and psychological wellbeing at six weeks, although the effects disappeared at six months.

    “Participants did however report improved social loneliness and psychological wellbeing at six weeks, although the effects disappeared at six months.”
  • In the self-management group study for single older women, no intervention effect was observed on participants' overall or emotional loneliness.

    “No intervention effect was observed on participants' overall or emotional loneliness.”
  • Thirteen out of 15 (87%) interventions categorised as having a theoretical basis reported beneficial effects on at least one outcome domain compared with 10 out of 17 (59%) studies categorised as having no theoretical basis.

    “Thirteen out of 15 (87%) interventions categorised as having a theoretical basis reported beneficial effects on at least one outcome domain [13,53-55,59,65,67-69,73-75,81] compared with 10/17 (59%) studies categorised as having no theoretical basis [52,56,60,63,66,70,71,76,78,79].”
  • Thirteen out of 19 (68%) group interventions in this review had a positive effect on at least one of the four social health sub-domains.

    “Thirteen out of 19 (68%) group interventions in this review [13,53,55,60,63,66-69,73-76] had a positive effect on at least one of the four social health sub-domains.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kremers, I. P., Steverink, N., Albersnagel, F. A., & Slaets, J. P. J.
Affiliations
University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Steverink, N.
Venue
Aging & Mental Health
Published
2006-09-01
Volume
10
Issue
5
Pages
476-484
ISSN
  • 1360-7863 (ISSN-L)
  • 1364-6915
OpenAlex
W2106100258
Cited by
86
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Aging & Mental Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Aging, Health, and Disability
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, psychology, and well-being
Keywords
self-management ability, well-being, older women, group intervention, loneliness, social loneliness, emotional loneliness, aging, single women
MeSH terms
Affect, Aged, Female, Humans, Loneliness, Middle Aged, Psychotherapy, Group, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Care, Time Factors

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