Understanding the protective effect of social support on depression symptomatology from a longitudinal network perspective.
COVID-19
adult psychiatry
depression & mood disorders
Journal
BMJ mental health
ISSN: 2755-9734
Titre abrégé: BMJ Ment Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9918521385306676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Nov 2023
29 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
19
06
2023
accepted:
08
11
2023
medline:
1
12
2023
pubmed:
30
11
2023
entrez:
29
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Higher social support protects people from developing mental disorders. Limited evidence is available on the mechanism through which social support plays this protective role. To investigate the stress-buffering process of social support on depressive symptoms using a novel longitudinal dynamic symptom network approach. 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. The results support a unidirectional protective effect of social support on key depressive symptoms, partly mediated through loneliness: A higher 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. Building community-based support networks to deliver practical support, and loneliness reduction components are critical for depression prevention interventions after stressful experiences.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the stress-buffering process of social support on depressive symptoms using a novel longitudinal dynamic symptom network approach.
METHODS
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
RESULTS
The results support a unidirectional protective effect of social support on key depressive symptoms, partly mediated through loneliness: A higher
CONCLUSIONS
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
CONCLUSIONS
Building community-based support networks to deliver practical support, and loneliness reduction components are critical for depression prevention interventions after stressful experiences.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38030405
pii: bmjment-2023-300802
doi: 10.1136/bmjment-2023-300802
pmc: PMC10689368
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
J Health Soc Behav. 2011 Jun;52(2):145-61
pubmed: 21673143
JAMA. 1999 Nov 10;282(18):1737-44
pubmed: 10568646
BMC Psychiatry. 2021 Jul 3;21(1):333
pubmed: 34217254
Behav Res Methods. 2018 Feb;50(1):195-212
pubmed: 28342071
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2016;12:307-30
pubmed: 26772209
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2007;3:377-401
pubmed: 17716061
Dev Psychol. 2017 Apr;53(4):787-799
pubmed: 28165254
Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2021 Oct;57(4):1578-1584
pubmed: 33410143
BMC Psychol. 2018 Jul 17;6(1):31
pubmed: 30016997
Psychother Psychosom. 2017;86(3):175-177
pubmed: 28490028
J Trauma Stress. 2014 Aug;27(4):446-53
pubmed: 25079708
Psychol Med. 2023 Aug;53(11):5267-5278
pubmed: 35924730
Br J Psychiatry. 2016 Oct;209(4):284-293
pubmed: 27445355
J Psychiatr Res. 2021 Oct;142:198-203
pubmed: 34365068
World Psychiatry. 2017 Feb;16(1):5-13
pubmed: 28127906
BJPsych Open. 2022 Jun 27;8(4):e116
pubmed: 35758630
J Affect Disord. 2020 Mar 15;265:32-38
pubmed: 31959583
Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2018 Aug;64(5):427-435
pubmed: 29792097
Psychol Bull. 2017 Aug;143(8):783-822
pubmed: 28447828
Int Psychogeriatr. 2013 Jan;25(1):61-70
pubmed: 22835874
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2021 Jan;46(1):156-175
pubmed: 32781460
Behav Res Ther. 2000 Apr;38(4):319-45
pubmed: 10761279
Multivariate Behav Res. 2021 Mar-Apr;56(2):353-367
pubmed: 31179765
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2021 Feb;62(2):184-194
pubmed: 32399985
Behav Res Ther. 2019 May;116:1-9
pubmed: 30710666
J Abnorm Psychol. 2016 Aug;125(6):747-57
pubmed: 27505622
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Mar 01;18(5):
pubmed: 33804561
Pharmacol Ther. 2011 Dec;132(3):242-67
pubmed: 21835197
Lancet. 2020 Oct 17;396(10258):1204-1222
pubmed: 33069326
Curr Neuropharmacol. 2015;13(4):494-504
pubmed: 26412069
Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2018 Jun;27(3):266-277
pubmed: 28183368