CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 189Mental Health Treatment and AccessAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health and Patient Involvement

Effects of befriending on depressive symptoms and distress: systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Mead, Nicola, Lester, Helen, Chew-Graham, Carolyn, Gask, Linda, Bower, Peter·2010·British Journal of Psychiatry
DOI 10.1192/bjp.bp.109.064089
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: High rates of emotional distress and depressive symptoms in the community can reflect difficult life events and social circumstances. There is a need for appropriate, low-cost, non-medical interventions for many individuals. Befriending is an emotional support intervention commonly offered by the voluntary sector. Aims: To examine the effectiveness of befriending in the treatment of emotional distress and depressive symptoms. Method: Systematic review of randomised trials of interventions focused on providing emotional support to individuals in the community. Results: Compared with usual care or no treatment, befriending had a modest but significant effect on depressive symptoms in the short term (standardised mean difference SMD=−0.27, 95% CI −0.48 to −0.06, nine studies) and long term (SMD = −0.18, 95% CI −0.32 to −0.05, five studies). Conclusions: Befriending has a modest effect on depressive symptoms and emotional distress in varied patient groups. Further exploration of active ingredients, appropriate target populations and optimal methods of delivery is required.

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 · 10.1192/bjp.bp.109.064089

Cites

89 of 89 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?

  • Befriending is effective in reducing depression in older people.

    “There is evidence that befriending (a one-to-one intervention) is effective in reducing depression in older people [29].”

    From Can support workers from AgeUK deliver an intervention to support older people with anxiety and depression? A qualitative evaluation (2019) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Results report a modest, significant reduction in depressive symptoms compared with usual care or no treatment. The review includes studies of older people, but its stated finding is for varied patient groups, not a separate conclusion that befriending is effective specifically in older people. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Befriending has been used as a standalone therapy to treat depression by facilitating social engagement.

    “Befriending has been used as both a standalone therapy to treat depression by facilitating social engagement (Mead et al., 2010)”

    From Can acceptance and commitment therapy facilitate psychological adjustment after a severe traumatic brain injury? A pilot randomized controlled trial. (2020) · cites this paper as Mead et al., 2010

    The Results (page unavailable) report that befriending reduced depressive symptoms compared with usual care or no treatment, and the intervention definition describes developing a supportive social relationship. But the Interpretation of the findings (page unavailable) says how befriending works remains uncertain; it does not establish that facilitating social engagement is the mechanism behind the reduction. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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. Gilbody S, Bower P, Fletcher J, Richards D, Sutton A. Collaborative care for depression: a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166: 2314-21.
  2. Department of Health. High Quality Care for All: NHS Next Stage Review Final Report. Department of Health, 2008.
  3. Torgerson D, Sibbald B. What is a patient preference trial? BMJ 1998; 316: 360.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mead, N., Lester, H., Chew-Graham, C., Gask, L., & Bower, P.
Affiliations
University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Mead, Nicola
ORCID
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Publisher
Royal College of Psychiatrists
Published
2010-02
Volume
196
Issue
2
Pages
96-101
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
DOI
10.1192/bjp.bp.109.064089
OpenAlex
W2151798133
Cited by
189
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 9
FWCI
1.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 2892 d)
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
befriending, depressive symptoms, emotional distress, community mental health, non-medical interventions, voluntary sector, low-cost interventions, treatment effectiveness
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Community Mental Health Services, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Social Support, Stress, Psychological, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, 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