Cited by 81Mental Health Research TopicsHealth disparities and outcomesCOVID-19 and Mental Health

Understanding the protective effect of social support on depression symptomatology from a longitudinal network perspective

Open access
Li, Gen, Li, Yifan, Lam, Agnes Iok Fong, Tang, Weiming, Seedat, Soraya, Barbui, Corrado, Papola, Davide, Panter-Brick, Catherine +21 more·2023·BMJ Mental Health

Abstract

Background: Higher social support protects people from developing mental disorders. Limited evidence is available on the mechanism through which social support plays this protective role. Objective: To investigate the stress-buffering process of social support on depressive symptoms using a novel longitudinal dynamic symptom network approach. Methods: A total of 4242 adult participants who completed the first two waves (from May to October 2020) of the International Covid Mental Health Survey were included in the study. Cross-lagged panel network modelling was used to estimate a longitudinal network of self-reported social support, loneliness and depressive symptoms. Standardised regression coefficients from regularised cross-lagged regressions were estimated as edge weights of the network. Findings: The results support a unidirectional protective effect of social support on key depressive symptoms, partly mediated through loneliness: A higher number of close confidants and accessible practical help was associated with decreased anhedonia (weight=−0.033) and negative self-appraisal symptoms (weight=−0.038). Support from others was also negatively associated with loneliness, which in turn associated with decreased depressed mood (weight=0.086) and negative self-appraisal (weight=0.077). We identified a greater number of direct relationships from social support to depressive symptoms among men compared with women. Also, the edge weights from social support to depression were generally stronger in the men’s network. Conclusions: Reductions in negative self-appraisal might function as a bridge between social support and other depressive symptoms, and, thus, it may have amplified the protective effect of social support. Men appear to benefit more from social support than women. Clinical implications: Building community-based support networks to deliver practical support, and loneliness reduction components are critical for depression prevention interventions after stressful experiences.

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 · 10.1136/bmjment-2023-300802

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • Even if someone does not frequently use the support available, just believing that it is there when needed can reduce feelings of loneliness.

    “Even if someone does not frequently use the support available, just believing that it is there when needed can reduce feelings of loneliness.75”

    From A Longitudinal Study of Loneliness Before the End of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Trajectories, Predictors, and Impact on Chinese Adolescent Mental Health (2024) · cites this paper as [75]

    The Findings and Discussion (pages not specified) report that social support was negatively associated with loneliness. The Methods measure accessible practical help, but the paper does not establish that believing support is available reduces loneliness even when someone rarely uses it; frequency of support use was not assessed in the cited passages. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, G., Li, Y., Lam, A. I. F., Tang, W., Seedat, S., Barbui, C., Papola, D., Panter-Brick, C., Waerden, J. V. D., Bryant, R., Mittendorfer-Rutz, E., Gémes, K., Purba, F. D., Setyowibowo, H., Pinucci, I., Palantza, C., Acarturk, C., Kurt, G., Tarsitani, L., Morina, N., Burchert, S., Patanè, M., Quero, S., Campos, D., Huizink, A. C., Fuhr, D. C., Spiller, T., Sijbrandij, M., & Hall, B. J.
Affiliations
  • New York University Shanghai (CN)
  • University of Macau (MO)
  • South African Medical Research Council (ZA)
  • University of Verona (IT)
  • Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
  • Institut Pierre Louis d‘Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique (iPLesp), Sorbonne Université and INSERM, Paris, Île-de- France, France
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Division of Insurance Medicine, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Padjadjaran University (ID)
  • Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
  • Department of Psychology, Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey
  • University Hospital Zurich (CH)
  • Freie Universität Berlin (DE)
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • Universitat Jaume I (ES)
  • Universidad de Zaragoza (ES)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Hall, Brian J
Venue
BMJ Mental Health
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2023-11
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
e300802
ISSN
2755-9734 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4389154382
Cited by
81
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 7
FWCI
20.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ Mental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Refubium (Universitätsbibliothek der Freien Universität Berlin) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Refubium (Universitätsbibliothek der Freien Universität Berlin) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zaguan (University of Zaragoza Repository) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Repositori UJI (Universitat Jaume I) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Universitätsbibliothek der FU Berlin Hochschulschriftenstelle u. Dokumentenserver
  • Universitätsbibliothek der FU Berlin Hochschulschriftenstelle u. Dokumentenserver (cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • Center for Global Health Equity, NYU Shanghai
  • Freie Universität Berlin
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
Keywords
social support, depression, depressive symptoms, loneliness, stress buffering, anhedonia, depressive mood, gender differences, COVID-19 pandemic mental health, depression prevention
MeSH terms
Adult, Mental Disorders, Depression, Female, Humans, Loneliness, Male, Social Support, Social Networking

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