MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402519188 · doi:10.2196/51214

Social Cohesion and COVID-19: Integrative Review

2024· review· en· W4402519188 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paul D. Ware

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Journal of Medical Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohesion (chemistry)ScholarshipSocial psychologyPsychologyScopusInterpersonal communicationSociologyPolitical scienceMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nations of considerable wealth and sophisticated health care infrastructures have experienced high rates of illness and death from COVID-19. Others with limited economic means and less developed health systems have achieved much lower burdens. To build a full understanding, an appraisal of the contribution of social relationships is necessary. Social cohesion represents a promising conceptual tool. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine scholarship on social cohesion during the COVID-19 pandemic: specifically, the constructions of social cohesion being deployed, the variables chosen for representation, and the effects of and on social cohesion being reported. METHODS: The PubMed, Scopus, and JSTOR databases were searched for relevant journal articles and gray literature. A total of 100 studies met the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and analyzed from these using spreadsheet software. RESULTS: Several constructions of social cohesion were found. These concerned interpersonal relationships, sameness and difference, collective action, perceptions or emotions of group members, structures and institutions of governance, locally or culturally specific versions, and hybrid or multidimensional models. Social cohesion was reported to be influential on health outcomes, health behaviors, resilience, and emotional well-being, but there was some potential for it to drive undesirable outcomes. Scholarship reported increases or decreases in quantitative measures of social cohesion, a temporary "rally round the flag" effect early in the pandemic, the variable impacts of policy on social cohesion, and changing interpersonal relationships due to the pandemic conditions. There are numerous issues with the literature that reflect the well-documented limitations of popular versions of the concept. CONCLUSIONS: Social cohesion has been used to express a range of different aspects of relationships during the pandemic. It is claimed to promote better health outcomes, more engagement with positive health behaviors, and greater resilience and emotional well-being. The literature presents a range of ways in which it has been altered by the pandemic conditions. There are significant weaknesses to this body of knowledge that greatly impede its overall quality.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.384
GPT teacher head0.687
Teacher spread0.303 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Journal of Medical ResearchSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207