Cited by 19Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityHealth disparities and outcomesMental Health Treatment and Access

The Influence of Health Literacy and Social Support on Loneliness Among Patients With Severe Mental Illness in Rural Southwest China

Open access
Liu, Yan, Meng, Hongdao, Conner, Kyaien O, Qiao, Mutian, Liu, Danping·2021·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Loneliness is an important risk factor for poor health outcomes among adults, especially among those with severe mental illnesses (SMIs). Existing research has shown that adults with SMIs often lack health literacy, which contributes to more restricted social networks and low levels of social support. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to examine the influence of health literacy and social support on the loneliness of patients with SMI in rural Southwest China. We recruited 300 patients with SMI in rural Southwest China between December, 2017 to May, 2018 via a multi-stage stratified random sampling approach. We used structural equation modeling (SEM) test the hypothesized relationships among the variables of the 270 patients who completed the survey. Results of the SEM showed that health literacy was both directly and indirectly associated with loneliness, with social support playing a mediating role. These findings suggest psychoeducation for SMI patients, and their informal caregivers, may offer beneficial effects toward reducing loneliness in this vulnerable population. Further, social support is another potential target for intervention development for improving patient outcomes.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.564666

Cites

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?

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 68 · Cited by 19

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Statictics (2010). The China’s 2010 Census-Volume 3: Education Level [Online]. Beijing: Statistics Press.
  2. Statictics (2018). China Statistical Yearbook 2018. Beijing: China Statistics Press.

Authors
Liu, Y., Meng, H., Conner, K. O., Qiao, M., & Liu, D.
Affiliations
  • Sichuan University (CN)
  • University of South Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Liu, Danping
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2021-09-08
Volume
12
Pages
564666-564666
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3197891536
Cited by
19
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
loneliness, health literacy, social support, severe mental illness, rural population, mediating role of social support, psychoeducation, informal caregivers, Southwest China

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