MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4383198204 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071533

Social support and psychosocial well-being among older adults in Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study

2023· article· en· W4383198204 on OpenAlexaff
Lü Ji, Juyang Xiong, Shangfeng Tang, Ghose Bishwajit, Shuyan Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicinePandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PsychosocialCross-sectional study2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Social supportPublic healthGerontologyEpidemiologyFamily medicinePsychiatryVirologyNursingDiseaseSocial psychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the study was to identify the association between social support and psychosocial well-being among men and women aged over 65 years in Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Cross-sectional data on 36 621 men (n=15 719) and women (n=20,902) aged 65 years or higher were obtained from the ninth round of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe. The outcomes were measured by psychosocial well-being reflected with self-reported depression, nervousness, loneliness and sleep disturbances. Social support was measured in terms of receiving help from own children, relatives and neighbours/friends/colleagues since the pandemic outbreak. RESULT: About one-third of the participants reported depression (31.03%), nervousness (32.85%), loneliness (32.23%) and sleep trouble (33.01%). The results of multivariable regression analysis revealed that social support was a protective factor to psychological well-being. For instance, receiving help from own children (RD=-0.13, 95% CI=-0.14 to -0.12), relatives (RD=-0.08, 95% CI=-0.11 to -0.06), neighbours/friends/colleagues (RD=-0.11, 95% CI=-0.13 to -0.09) and receiving home care (RD=-0.20, 95% CI=-0.22 to -0.18) showed significantly lower risk difference for depression. Similar findings were noted for loneliness, nervousness, and sleep trouble as well, with the risk difference being slightly different for men and women in the gender-stratified analysis. For instance, the risk difference in depression for receiving help from own children was -0.10 (95% CI=-0.12 to -0.08) among men compared with -0.12 (95% CI=-0.14 to -0.11) among women. The risk differences in the outcome measures were calculated using generalised linear model for binomial family. CONCLUSION: Findings of the present study highlight a protective role of social support on psychological well-being among both men and women. Developing strategies to promote social support, especially among older adults, may mitigate the rising burden of psychological illness during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.383 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicCOVID-19 and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→