Association between friendship quality and subjective wellbeing among adolescents: a systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Social integration with friends has an important role in shaping adolescents' behavior and determining their wellbeing. Friendship features such as companionship, trust, closeness, intimacy, and conflicts all form the concept of friendship quality. The quality of friendships can either enhance or impede mental development during adolescence. Therefore, this systematic review was conducted to understand the association between friendship quality and adolescents' mental wellbeing. METHODS: In November 2020 and later in August 2022, the search for evidence was conducted on five databases (Medline, Embase, ProQuest, Scopus, and PsycINFO). Only peer-reviewed quantitative studies published from January 2000 to August 2022 that investigated friendship quality as their exposure variable in relation to six constructs of subjective wellbeing (mood, loneliness, life satisfaction, happiness, self-esteem, and subjective wellbeing) were included. After screening for eligibility, two reviewers independently extracted the data based on population characteristics, study design, exposure and outcome variables, outcome measures used, and results. Risk of bias assessment was performed utilizing the NIH Quality Assessment Tool. Narrative evidence synthesis was performed based on the constructs of subjective wellbeing. RESULTS: Forty-three articles out of 21,585 records were included in the review. The relationship between friendship quality and depression has been investigated extensively in the literature and negative (beneficial) associations were found in eighteen studies out of twenty-three. Poor peer relationship was associated with loneliness in nine studies out of ten. All seven studies on life satisfaction and quality of peer connection found a positive association. In five studies, better peer relationship was found to be associated with happiness. A positive association between friendship quality and self-esteem was observed in five out of six applicable studies. Friendship quality was found to be positively associated with subjective well-being in all of five included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Although majority of the included studies were cross-sectional in nature, this review demonstrates the paramount value of promoting healthy friendship to adolescents' subjective wellbeing constructs. Interventions that aim to promote subjective wellbeing among adolescents should consider the development and maintenance of healthy friendships. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020219312.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».