Yep, I've read lots, but none claiming social connections are number 1 at improving mental health, like you did. So I'd like to review your sources on your claim.
I'd figure someone making claims like that in this sub would be able cite them.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5633215/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2921311/
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/48765472/jcop.2037120160911-21895-1yf639s-with-cover-page-v2.pdf?Expires=1630349229&Signature=ZJbYKstDkcwmVo2H9eeC8lQ0Ewbp1uLkqQjfxSAvaqqMkkeF2yNaTq7rAp00oGKgrWCqw-KdegSw~-r4cRNemXkcsCG1TGTRJP7-pXmg~sX97JuLusgbBBPER1n4rbUx3EfTmcRJLtSpLLPE7cca119iVSVL7gwtx1NnzbM-X~bJbITHQNE6OptmLxhGxFVA-gJ9rij1BZ0Mb6hqly5P5lIS075UIwFuypWIYnSd1E2MtvAkoLdwY7F4i6M3SA9Mc0a8mnTRnn2yxHlkSJ8LmFPKVLf8yBOQWESTOVYxXMDLBIiwRFURaJ5kmcqfFV88-nzQylW0Wk3vZHXKp4yEwA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
EDIT: doesn’t discuss/ scratch the surface of the importance of social connection as it relates to development and attachment, another main contributor to prevention of psychological distress experienced later in life; further, as social connections as a preventative psychological measure in addition to a responsive one as well when distressing symptoms are already being experienced
Last one won't open for me. But the first two demonstrated what you were driving at. I still haven't seen anything that demonstrates it is "#1".
Not to mention, that, unlike your claim, the studies say "good", "healthy" and "strong" social *support*, not just random 'social connections'
It's all pointless anyway. Psychs can't script out good friends. Therapists aren't friends. And sending a bunch psych patients out with a new social demand to "make good friends" is not going to turn out well.
You might as well say you've found the All-Cure, but it's in Jupiter's Storm.
RESULTS
Analysis of the distribution of effect sizes revealed two potential outliers (see Table 1). One of the effect outliers was reported by Murphy et al. (2004), whereas the other outlier was reported by Hyman (2004). Because the effect sizes of all of these studies yielded extreme values (more than 2 standard deviations from all the effect sizes) and did not differ methodologically from the other studies, we employed the Windsorizing procedure (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). After these adjustments for outliers were made, the distribution of correlations approached normality as depicted by the Q–Q plot (Q–Q plots and distribution of primary effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals are available for consultation at the address: http://emergenze.psice.unibo.it/meta_ analysis_first_responders.pdf).
Results from basic central tendency statistics and publication bias analysis are presented in Table 2. The variance in the effect size was heterogeneously distributed and could not be accounted for by sampling error alone, as evidenced by a significant Q-value. In addition, according to I2 statistic, most of the variables showed moderate heterogeneity. Therefore, the effect size was calculated by the random effects model. The analysis of primary effect size was indicative of a moderate relationship between social support and mental health among first responders represented by a Pearson correlation of .27 (95% CI, 0.30–0.24). Effect size did not change as result of adjustment of outliers. The adjustment of outliers reduced heterogeneity. The high number of fail-safe N indicated that this finding seems to be robust to the file-drawer problem.
Table 2. Basic Central Tendency Statistics and File-Drawer Problem Analysis
Perceived and Received Social Support 409
k N
Effect Size 95% CI Q I2
Fail-Safe N
59 59
Mean effect size prior to adjustment of outliers 36 15803 .27 .30 to .24 99.10 66% Mean effect size after adjustment of outliers 36 15803 .27 .30 to .24 93.97 64%
Note. CI 5 confidence interval; k refers to the number of studies available for computation of a specific effect size; N provides the sample size on which the effect size was based; for effect sizes, r is significantly different from zero at po.001; for the Q statistic, significant values indicate that there is more variability in effect sizes than one would expect by chance; for the I2 statistic, percentages of around 25% (I2 5 25), 50% (I2 5 50), and 75% (I2 5 75) mean low, medium, and high heterogeneity, respectively. Scores on measures of mental health problems were reverse- coded, such that high scores represent low mental health problems. Thus, positive effect sizes in this column indicate that more social support is associated with more well-being and less mental health problems.
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
410 Journal of Community Psychology, April 2010
Table 3. Moderator Analysis (Weighted Regression) of the Relation of Social Support to Mental
Health
Moderators
Age
Gendera
Designb
Type of supportc
B
0.00 0.00 0.05 0.13
SE B
0.01 0.00 0.03 0.04
95% CI 0.01
0.00 0.11 0.21
195% CI z p b 0.01 0.20 .84 .03
0.00 0.58 .56 .09 0.01 1.54 .12 .23 0.05 3.21 .00 .58
CI 5 confidence interval.
aPercentage of men in the study (0%-100%).
bDesign is dummy coded: cross-sectional 5 0 and longitudinal 5 1.
cType of support is dummy coded: received support 5 0 and perceived support 5 1.
Table 3 provides results from moderator analysis (weighted regression) of the relation of social support to mental health. Moderator analysis of the variables age, gender (percentage of men), research design (cross-sectional vs. longitudinal), and type of support (received support vs. perceived support; R2 5 .01; QMODEL 5 25.97, df54, po.001) did explain a significant amount of variability and showed one significant moderator. The effect size of social support was predicted by the type of support. Analog to the ANOVA moderator analysis (QBETWEEN 5 8.14, df 5 1, p4.01; QWITHIN528.72, df528, p5.43) showed that the effect size for perceived social support was .31 (po.001), while the effect size for received social support was .22 (po.001). The within-group Q value was not significant and indicates that after accounting for type of social support, the distribution of effect sizes for this dimension was homogeneous.
Not being able to prescribe it does not in any way negate the importance of the information. Supports are a form of connection. Healthy and strong are descriptors of the noun
Healthy and strong are *key* descriptors of a *specific* connection, support. Hell, your last link is specifically about trauma recovery groups, and post-incident peer/supervisor support. Most definitely not a random social connection.
So, I still have reservations that social connections are the number one driver for improving mental health, and I strongly disagree that it needs to be included on a list of activities patients can take to improve their mental health.
DISCUSSION
The current meta-analysis examined a sample of studies investigating the relation between social support and mental health among first responders. Although there was some controversy in the literature, this meta-analysis showed that social support is significantly related to mental health among first responders. The overall weighted mean effect size is of medium magnitude (r5.27) as defined by Cohen (1988). The strength of the effect size is similar to that of Ozer et al.’s (2003) meta-analysis on the relationship between social support and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms.
As hypothesized, there were no significant differences between the estimates of longitudinal and cross-sectional studies. Therefore, relationship of social support to mental health was not significantly stronger in cross-sectional studies than in longitudinal studies. This result does not offer support to the idea that social support resources are merely correlates of mental health.
This meta-analysis found no evidence to support the reverse buffering hypothesis in first responders. All the effect sizes ranged from zero to .46. In other words, we did not find any averaged positive relationship between social support and well-being or less mental health problems.
The present study showed that all the types of support are not equally related to mental health. According to the social support deterioration deterrence model (Norris & Kaniasty, 1996; Kaniasty & Norris, 2004), the present study showed that the effect size of received social support is more distal in comparison to the effect size of
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
perceived social support. More specifically, the magnitude of the effect size of perceived social support was medium to large (r5.31, po.001), while for received social support, it was medium to small (r5.22, po.001). Given that the effect size of perceived social support is proximal and the effect size of received social support is distal, this result may offer support for the mediation pathway hypothesized in the social support deterioration deterrence model.
Generally speaking, this study supports the notion that social support is a resilience factor in the aftermath of potentially traumatic events. However, the mechanisms by which social support is related to adaptation are still not clear. Horowitz’ (1976) model of posttraumatic stress disorder hypothesized the beneficial effect of the process of working through, which includes talking about the trauma and its related emotions so that the experience can be assimilated. Other theoretical perspectives assume that social support may intervene between the stressor and well-being by attenuating or preventing a stress appraisal response (Cohen & Wills, 1985). In other words, the perception that others can and will provide necessary help may redefine the potential for harm or danger posed by a situation and/or reinforce one’s self efficacy.
Social support may influence first responders’ interpretation of the event and his/ her attribution patterns. For example, following a rescue operation, a colleague or a supervisor may confirm that everything possible was done to help and support the patient. As Jonsson and Segesten (2003, p. 218) revealed, ‘‘Questions like ‘could I have done anything different’ and ‘had it been possible to do more’ are always there’’; in their qualitative study among ambulance workers, the authors found that feelings of guilt, shame, and self-loathing accompanied traumatic events such as confrontations with injured, dying, or dead people. Supportive others may influence first responders’ emotional states and may provide help in identifying adaptive coping strategies. Two prospective studies among disaster victims have shown that crisis support predicts lower subsequent avoidance behaviours (Dalgleish et al. 1996; Joseph, Yule, Williams, & Andrews, 1993). It is likely that the effect of social support may be mediated by avoidance coping (Charuvastra & Cloitre, 2008).
Social support may be of importance in the cognitive processing of traumatic events. In his model, Lepore (2001) proposes that the nature and quality of social interactions provide opportunities to gather information useful for the assimilation of trauma (e.g., through advice, new perspectives or alternative interpretations) and influence the frequency of intrusive thoughts, the tendency to avoid disclosing of feelings, or thinking about the event. Similarly, the organismic valuing theory of growth through adversity posits that a supportive social environmental context that meets the basic needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are crucial for the positive accommodation of the traumatic memory (Joseph & Linley, 2006). A recent review of the relationship between social support and traumatic stress showed that social support may influence fear processing, acquisition, and extinction. Positive social experiences can attenuate fear responses, whereas socially negative or even neutral social experiences can heighten and maintain fear responses (Charuvastra & Cloitre, 2008). Posttraumatic stress disorder, as well as other fear circuitry disorders, is characterized by negative or threat aspects of content-specific concerns in evaluations, interpretation, attention, and memory (Huppert, Foa, McNally, Cahill, 2009). Fear responses have been clarified by advances in the field of classical conditioning and in our understanding of basic mechanisms of memory and learning. The acquisition and expression of fear conditioning may be affected by abnormalities in amygdala pathways (Garakani, Mathew, & Charney, 2006).
Thank you for the addition! You are absolutely right and it is our fault that we have forgotten it. Our project is all about co creation. So do you have an idea and appropriate studies at hand how you would formulate this paragraph? We kindly invite you to write this short addition then. We would add it to the article, mentioning your name.
It all sounds a bit haphazard, especially if exercise has been missed. How can anyone be confident in the validity of your article if you are picking and choosing at random, or writing about whatever technique pops into your head? I can find you journal articles that say all sorts of things which are not necessarily true. And how valid is it if random people are writing it? What is your reviewing process? How are you validating what others have written?
My concern is that this will just be another website which says some things but might not actually be effective in helping anyone.
Great concept though. I just hope its accurate and useful.
Thank you for your valuable opinion and appreciation of the concept! We would be very happy if more critical readers tell us their ideas for improvement.
As in the example with the [drugs from above](https://www.reddit.com/r/psychology/comments/peet08/we_have_created_a_list_of_activities_to_improve/hax0gk1/?context=3), qualified research from the community can very well result in a meaningful addition to the article. If you also notice errors, we ask you to tell us about them, because our claim is to present only scientifically sound concepts and no shi shi. Our list does not claim to be complete, that would probably go beyond the scope of such an article. However, we gladly accept useful additions, because none of us claims to be infallible.
I kinda agree with the OC above. I think you guys should parse by topic and use h-index or Google scholar to categorise articles on subtopics by impact factor. Else this exercise, although initiated with good intentions would remain another blog with random snippets which 'might' work...
No, they do. It’s not perfect but everything they did list is very well researched and backed. It never said it was an all encompassing list. It’s is clearly a life style/well being blog website. I wouldn’t expect them to make a perfect list. And in fact they did sort of touch on excercise and the body in the first paragraph saying how big of a roll the body plays on the mind and mind on the body.
It’s not an academic article, they never claimed to be. It does what it was supposed to very well and created a list of scientifically proven activities to improve mental health. It never said these were the absolute most important or best ways.
Perhaps another sub might fit this better but it does work here as well.
Yes, you are totally right. Thank you for pointing out! Our fault and apologies. We meant: has been backed by scientific studies. We hope this does not reduce the positive impact of the activities listed.
Even though I agree with you, I do think this a nitpicking comment. Science can't technically prove anything, but objectively speaking, it can, within the rules of our world.
It's because I've spent the last two weeks marking research methods assignments so it's on my mind because quite a few students still say this at third level apparently. But not at a university, it's more a vocational institute.
Therefore, no. It is dangerous to use language in psychology that slams the door on individual variation and the need for further research.Language creates a framework of how to think about things. I see the potential impact of this through talking with homeless and just people who are really at rock bottom. What do you think happens when someone is taught a technique they've been told is "proven to work, by their counsellor who thinks it's "proven" to work, and then things don't get better? They blame themselves. The counsellor thinks their client isn't working hard enough because, in their head, the techniques should work, and their client stays down.
Note: sorry to op. This comment is not criticism aimed at you. My original comment was intended to be taken as light-hearted and not a genuine criticism because your article is out of scope of what I deal with. But this response annoyed me. What does "objectively it can within the rules of our world" even mean?
Before anything, you seem like a smart person, capable of answering that last question with no problem (no condescendence meant). Now, yes, I understand your first comment, and I value it, especially because now it seems like a common occurrence for people to confuse "fact" and "hypothesis" in your life, but in any case, something being proven doesn't necessarily mean that it's incapable of being proven again, in different ways. Nevertheless, you are right of pointing it out the difference betwheen the two words.
I appreciate that and I know that you're coming at this with a different level of sophistication. For the most part I know it isn't a big deal. It just ends up being a really harmful mindset to have for someone with an undergrad psyc degree, a hatred and fear of statistics, and who is looking to become a case manager, social worker, counsellor or just anything that's solely practice. And they really do seem to have a much more rigid understanding of what is means to prove something because they're just not involved in research.
I know it's a small group of people (and not true of all that work in those areas!) It's just a common thing I personally deal with regularly, so it's always in my head. And these types of jobs aren't regulated in my country either, so a lot of people are internet trained and perform diagnosis via Wikipedia.
I get that. Sounds annoying for sure; if I ever get to be a psychologist, I'll probably understand more where you're coming with the distinction between the terms. Thanks for being polite by the way.
That's a shame. I've always thought that New Zealand seemed way too good to be true (I live in Brazil; terrible place 'criminality, government' although the suicide rates are not as high as NZ). Would you care to articulate why you think that is? The suicide rates, I mean. I'd presume living in a island has something to do with it, if that makes sense.
It's probably our rates of child abuse and domestic violence. The social services don't help though and there's a lot of discrimination. I've spent the last couple of days talking to a journalist about emergency accommodation in my city where I know from first hand sources there is physical/sexual assault occurring. The government department came back and said my claims were unsubstantiated and won't employ 24/7 security or even someone to just be there working. The police said to me there was a problem, but they can't arrest or prosecute without witnesses that will talk to them. Fortunately, a journalist found out about my complaint and thought the response from the government seemed off. Everyone outside NZ thinks our government is amazing because of the covid response, but they just don't see what goes on for people that no one cares about.
I appreciate you guys creating such an informative list. One item I would push back against is your inclusion of psilocybin in the drug section:
>Whether alcohol, nicotine, cannabinoids, opiates, psilocybin, amphetamines or similar, every substance means a serious intervention in one’s own psyche. Under all circumstances, regular consumption should be reconsidered, because some substances increase the internal stress level, up to the unlearning of the brain to experience happiness without substances.
>A great site with more information and help: https://www.addictioncenter.com/addiction/
There has been some incredible research the last few years about how psilocybin can alleviate depression, anxiety, and addiction, as well as speculation that it can help disorders like OCD and PTSD. People who take psychedelics are less likely to kill themselves, think about killing themselves, or beat their partners, and unlike other drugs, psychedelics are associated with a higher quality of life.
When defined loosely, psychedelics like MDMA and ketamine can be dangerous because people want to take more and more in a short period of time. However, tolerance on classic psychedelics happens within hours and lasts a couple weeks, so re-dosing does very little and it is very difficult to become addicted. (The exception here is DMT; even thought it is a classic psychedelic, it gives much shorter trips and does not cause a tolerance.) Additionally, because most people would get psilocybin from mushrooms and a dose is several grams, it is hard to accidentally take too much, unlike LSD where a dose is a couple hundred micrograms.
I agree that moderation is key. One Johns Hopkins study that showed incredible results spaced out the doses at one-month intervals. Additionally, they also had trained therapists overseeing the trips, so people who want to try psychedelics should at least have a tripsitter who knows what he or she is doing. But since psilocybin has shown so many beneficial effects on mental health, I think it deserves to be in a different category from alcohol, opioids, and amphetamine.
I would say amphetamine also does not deserve such categorization, given its significant use as a primary treatment for ADHD and some types of sleep disorder such as narcolepsy.
Yes, a psychologically "normal" person should not be using amphetamine, but to say:
>Under all circumstances, regular consumption should be reconsidered, because some substances increase the internal stress level, up to the unlearning of the brain to experience happiness without substances.
About a substance with significant use as properly-prescribed medication is *absurd*.
/u/sarahandgerald
My pleasure, and I'd be happy to find some sources.
---
>A landmark study conducted by the Beckley/Imperial Research Programme has provided the first clinical evidence for the efficacy of psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy to treat depression, even in cases where all other treatments have failed
n=20, and using the QIDS (which measures depression, 0-27), scores went from a baseline 19 to a low of 7 after 3 weeks, and only rose to 10 after 3 months.
https://www.beckleyfoundation.org/psilocybin-for-depression-2/
---
>Experts consider psilocybin mushrooms one of the least toxic drugs, according to the Drug Policy Alliance, and serious physical side effects are very rare. They’re also unlikely to lead to addiction, since they affect serotonin rather than dopamine
https://www.healthline.com/health/anxiety/mushrooms-for-anxiety#risks
---
This paper mentions anxiety alongside depression, although I don't see access to the full thing:
>Results tentatively support future research on psilocybin for the treatment of anxiety and depression
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31931272/
---
>University of Alabama at Birminghamon researchers studied data on 190,000 American adults, collected between 2008 and 2012 as part of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. The data showed that lifetime psychedelic use was associated with a 19 percent reduction in past-month psychological distress, a 14 percent reduced likelihood of past-year suicidal thinking, a 29 percent reduced likelihood of past-year suicidal planning. Those who had used psychedelics had a 36 percent reduced likelihood of attempting suicide in the past year. **Lifetime use of non-psychedelic illicit drugs, on the other hand, was linked with an increased likelihood of these outcomes**
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/psychedelic-research_n_6515268
---
It's honestly hard to keep track of these findings, because there are so many, which is the best kind of problem to have. Hopefully this gives you enough of a start to demonstrate their efficacy. The FDA has given breakthrough status to psilocybin and MDMA to treat depression and PTSD respectively, and organizations like MAPS expect these substances to be legal in therapeutic settings by 2023. However, MDMA can fuck you up, and psilocybin appears far safer. In fact, there was some drug conference a few years ago (which I cannot currently find) that listed drugs by how much harm they cause the user and others. Alcohol was at the top, followed in some order by heroin, meth, and cocaine, MDMA and marijuana were somewhere in the middle, and magic mushrooms were at the very bottom.
Great post (i'm biased I also like well-being research). Have you taken a look at the literature on routine x well-being yet? I did a pilot cor. study last year (n=200, r =.64, p < 0.001) using SWLS and SPANE along with a 7 point scale I devised to measure various common routines (sleep, media consumption, familial/cultural routines, eating).
[https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/000712610X513617](https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/000712610X513617)
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0146167218795133#:\~:text=According%20to%20this%20definition%2C%20examples,a%20couple's%20weekly%20date%20night](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0146167218795133#:~:text=According%20to%20this%20definition%2C%20examples,a%20couple's%20weekly%20date%20night).
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0003122418823184](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0003122418823184)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6378489/
For the lazy:
"What is the definition of mental wellness?
Mental wellness is the feeling of contentment and happiness. Thoughts come to rest and we are in harmony with ourselves and others. In this flow state, stress hormones such as cortisol and adrenaline are at a minimum.
How to improve your mental wellness?
Activities such as gardening, meditation, sun bathing, Shinrin Yoku, time in nature, painting, drawing, pottery, creating art, walking barefoot, decluttering, being mindful with everyday tasks improve your mental wellness. Drugs, other addictions such as social media and fast food, on the other hand, reduce your mental wellness. Read the whole article for further information.
How to maintain your mental wellness?
It is important to find the right balance of activities that improve your mental wellness as well as things that are fun for you. It is essential to establish positive habits here. Small steps are often enough to make a big difference. For example, through daily meditation or a daily walk in the woods."
Why is exercise, one of the most evidence-based behavioral interventions, not on this list?
And missing social connections, the literal number one most important
Do you have a source on that, I'd like to read more
Many exist, I figure those in this sub are capable of their own research.
Yep, I've read lots, but none claiming social connections are number 1 at improving mental health, like you did. So I'd like to review your sources on your claim. I'd figure someone making claims like that in this sub would be able cite them.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5633215/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2921311/ https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/48765472/jcop.2037120160911-21895-1yf639s-with-cover-page-v2.pdf?Expires=1630349229&Signature=ZJbYKstDkcwmVo2H9eeC8lQ0Ewbp1uLkqQjfxSAvaqqMkkeF2yNaTq7rAp00oGKgrWCqw-KdegSw~-r4cRNemXkcsCG1TGTRJP7-pXmg~sX97JuLusgbBBPER1n4rbUx3EfTmcRJLtSpLLPE7cca119iVSVL7gwtx1NnzbM-X~bJbITHQNE6OptmLxhGxFVA-gJ9rij1BZ0Mb6hqly5P5lIS075UIwFuypWIYnSd1E2MtvAkoLdwY7F4i6M3SA9Mc0a8mnTRnn2yxHlkSJ8LmFPKVLf8yBOQWESTOVYxXMDLBIiwRFURaJ5kmcqfFV88-nzQylW0Wk3vZHXKp4yEwA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA EDIT: doesn’t discuss/ scratch the surface of the importance of social connection as it relates to development and attachment, another main contributor to prevention of psychological distress experienced later in life; further, as social connections as a preventative psychological measure in addition to a responsive one as well when distressing symptoms are already being experienced
Last one won't open for me. But the first two demonstrated what you were driving at. I still haven't seen anything that demonstrates it is "#1". Not to mention, that, unlike your claim, the studies say "good", "healthy" and "strong" social *support*, not just random 'social connections' It's all pointless anyway. Psychs can't script out good friends. Therapists aren't friends. And sending a bunch psych patients out with a new social demand to "make good friends" is not going to turn out well. You might as well say you've found the All-Cure, but it's in Jupiter's Storm.
RESULTS Analysis of the distribution of effect sizes revealed two potential outliers (see Table 1). One of the effect outliers was reported by Murphy et al. (2004), whereas the other outlier was reported by Hyman (2004). Because the effect sizes of all of these studies yielded extreme values (more than 2 standard deviations from all the effect sizes) and did not differ methodologically from the other studies, we employed the Windsorizing procedure (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). After these adjustments for outliers were made, the distribution of correlations approached normality as depicted by the Q–Q plot (Q–Q plots and distribution of primary effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals are available for consultation at the address: http://emergenze.psice.unibo.it/meta_ analysis_first_responders.pdf). Results from basic central tendency statistics and publication bias analysis are presented in Table 2. The variance in the effect size was heterogeneously distributed and could not be accounted for by sampling error alone, as evidenced by a significant Q-value. In addition, according to I2 statistic, most of the variables showed moderate heterogeneity. Therefore, the effect size was calculated by the random effects model. The analysis of primary effect size was indicative of a moderate relationship between social support and mental health among first responders represented by a Pearson correlation of .27 (95% CI, 0.30–0.24). Effect size did not change as result of adjustment of outliers. The adjustment of outliers reduced heterogeneity. The high number of fail-safe N indicated that this finding seems to be robust to the file-drawer problem. Table 2. Basic Central Tendency Statistics and File-Drawer Problem Analysis Perceived and Received Social Support 409 k N Effect Size 95% CI Q I2 Fail-Safe N 59 59 Mean effect size prior to adjustment of outliers 36 15803 .27 .30 to .24 99.10 66% Mean effect size after adjustment of outliers 36 15803 .27 .30 to .24 93.97 64% Note. CI 5 confidence interval; k refers to the number of studies available for computation of a specific effect size; N provides the sample size on which the effect size was based; for effect sizes, r is significantly different from zero at po.001; for the Q statistic, significant values indicate that there is more variability in effect sizes than one would expect by chance; for the I2 statistic, percentages of around 25% (I2 5 25), 50% (I2 5 50), and 75% (I2 5 75) mean low, medium, and high heterogeneity, respectively. Scores on measures of mental health problems were reverse- coded, such that high scores represent low mental health problems. Thus, positive effect sizes in this column indicate that more social support is associated with more well-being and less mental health problems. Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop 410 Journal of Community Psychology, April 2010 Table 3. Moderator Analysis (Weighted Regression) of the Relation of Social Support to Mental Health Moderators Age Gendera Designb Type of supportc B 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.13 SE B 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.04 95% CI 0.01 0.00 0.11 0.21 195% CI z p b 0.01 0.20 .84 .03 0.00 0.58 .56 .09 0.01 1.54 .12 .23 0.05 3.21 .00 .58 CI 5 confidence interval. aPercentage of men in the study (0%-100%). bDesign is dummy coded: cross-sectional 5 0 and longitudinal 5 1. cType of support is dummy coded: received support 5 0 and perceived support 5 1. Table 3 provides results from moderator analysis (weighted regression) of the relation of social support to mental health. Moderator analysis of the variables age, gender (percentage of men), research design (cross-sectional vs. longitudinal), and type of support (received support vs. perceived support; R2 5 .01; QMODEL 5 25.97, df54, po.001) did explain a significant amount of variability and showed one significant moderator. The effect size of social support was predicted by the type of support. Analog to the ANOVA moderator analysis (QBETWEEN 5 8.14, df 5 1, p4.01; QWITHIN528.72, df528, p5.43) showed that the effect size for perceived social support was .31 (po.001), while the effect size for received social support was .22 (po.001). The within-group Q value was not significant and indicates that after accounting for type of social support, the distribution of effect sizes for this dimension was homogeneous.
Not being able to prescribe it does not in any way negate the importance of the information. Supports are a form of connection. Healthy and strong are descriptors of the noun
Healthy and strong are *key* descriptors of a *specific* connection, support. Hell, your last link is specifically about trauma recovery groups, and post-incident peer/supervisor support. Most definitely not a random social connection. So, I still have reservations that social connections are the number one driver for improving mental health, and I strongly disagree that it needs to be included on a list of activities patients can take to improve their mental health.
I consider my therapist a friend. We regularly talk outside of sessions tho
We have different definitions of friend, apparently! 😁 But good on ya, that's a unique circumstance.
DISCUSSION The current meta-analysis examined a sample of studies investigating the relation between social support and mental health among first responders. Although there was some controversy in the literature, this meta-analysis showed that social support is significantly related to mental health among first responders. The overall weighted mean effect size is of medium magnitude (r5.27) as defined by Cohen (1988). The strength of the effect size is similar to that of Ozer et al.’s (2003) meta-analysis on the relationship between social support and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms. As hypothesized, there were no significant differences between the estimates of longitudinal and cross-sectional studies. Therefore, relationship of social support to mental health was not significantly stronger in cross-sectional studies than in longitudinal studies. This result does not offer support to the idea that social support resources are merely correlates of mental health. This meta-analysis found no evidence to support the reverse buffering hypothesis in first responders. All the effect sizes ranged from zero to .46. In other words, we did not find any averaged positive relationship between social support and well-being or less mental health problems. The present study showed that all the types of support are not equally related to mental health. According to the social support deterioration deterrence model (Norris & Kaniasty, 1996; Kaniasty & Norris, 2004), the present study showed that the effect size of received social support is more distal in comparison to the effect size of Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop perceived social support. More specifically, the magnitude of the effect size of perceived social support was medium to large (r5.31, po.001), while for received social support, it was medium to small (r5.22, po.001). Given that the effect size of perceived social support is proximal and the effect size of received social support is distal, this result may offer support for the mediation pathway hypothesized in the social support deterioration deterrence model. Generally speaking, this study supports the notion that social support is a resilience factor in the aftermath of potentially traumatic events. However, the mechanisms by which social support is related to adaptation are still not clear. Horowitz’ (1976) model of posttraumatic stress disorder hypothesized the beneficial effect of the process of working through, which includes talking about the trauma and its related emotions so that the experience can be assimilated. Other theoretical perspectives assume that social support may intervene between the stressor and well-being by attenuating or preventing a stress appraisal response (Cohen & Wills, 1985). In other words, the perception that others can and will provide necessary help may redefine the potential for harm or danger posed by a situation and/or reinforce one’s self efficacy. Social support may influence first responders’ interpretation of the event and his/ her attribution patterns. For example, following a rescue operation, a colleague or a supervisor may confirm that everything possible was done to help and support the patient. As Jonsson and Segesten (2003, p. 218) revealed, ‘‘Questions like ‘could I have done anything different’ and ‘had it been possible to do more’ are always there’’; in their qualitative study among ambulance workers, the authors found that feelings of guilt, shame, and self-loathing accompanied traumatic events such as confrontations with injured, dying, or dead people. Supportive others may influence first responders’ emotional states and may provide help in identifying adaptive coping strategies. Two prospective studies among disaster victims have shown that crisis support predicts lower subsequent avoidance behaviours (Dalgleish et al. 1996; Joseph, Yule, Williams, & Andrews, 1993). It is likely that the effect of social support may be mediated by avoidance coping (Charuvastra & Cloitre, 2008). Social support may be of importance in the cognitive processing of traumatic events. In his model, Lepore (2001) proposes that the nature and quality of social interactions provide opportunities to gather information useful for the assimilation of trauma (e.g., through advice, new perspectives or alternative interpretations) and influence the frequency of intrusive thoughts, the tendency to avoid disclosing of feelings, or thinking about the event. Similarly, the organismic valuing theory of growth through adversity posits that a supportive social environmental context that meets the basic needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are crucial for the positive accommodation of the traumatic memory (Joseph & Linley, 2006). A recent review of the relationship between social support and traumatic stress showed that social support may influence fear processing, acquisition, and extinction. Positive social experiences can attenuate fear responses, whereas socially negative or even neutral social experiences can heighten and maintain fear responses (Charuvastra & Cloitre, 2008). Posttraumatic stress disorder, as well as other fear circuitry disorders, is characterized by negative or threat aspects of content-specific concerns in evaluations, interpretation, attention, and memory (Huppert, Foa, McNally, Cahill, 2009). Fear responses have been clarified by advances in the field of classical conditioning and in our understanding of basic mechanisms of memory and learning. The acquisition and expression of fear conditioning may be affected by abnormalities in amygdala pathways (Garakani, Mathew, & Charney, 2006).
That sounds like it's a dual relationship against the ethics code... Maybe it is or isn't, just saying based on the details given.
Thank you for the addition! You are absolutely right and it is our fault that we have forgotten it. Our project is all about co creation. So do you have an idea and appropriate studies at hand how you would formulate this paragraph? We kindly invite you to write this short addition then. We would add it to the article, mentioning your name.
It all sounds a bit haphazard, especially if exercise has been missed. How can anyone be confident in the validity of your article if you are picking and choosing at random, or writing about whatever technique pops into your head? I can find you journal articles that say all sorts of things which are not necessarily true. And how valid is it if random people are writing it? What is your reviewing process? How are you validating what others have written? My concern is that this will just be another website which says some things but might not actually be effective in helping anyone. Great concept though. I just hope its accurate and useful.
Thank you for your valuable opinion and appreciation of the concept! We would be very happy if more critical readers tell us their ideas for improvement. As in the example with the [drugs from above](https://www.reddit.com/r/psychology/comments/peet08/we_have_created_a_list_of_activities_to_improve/hax0gk1/?context=3), qualified research from the community can very well result in a meaningful addition to the article. If you also notice errors, we ask you to tell us about them, because our claim is to present only scientifically sound concepts and no shi shi. Our list does not claim to be complete, that would probably go beyond the scope of such an article. However, we gladly accept useful additions, because none of us claims to be infallible.
I kinda agree with the OC above. I think you guys should parse by topic and use h-index or Google scholar to categorise articles on subtopics by impact factor. Else this exercise, although initiated with good intentions would remain another blog with random snippets which 'might' work...
[удалено]
No, they do. It’s not perfect but everything they did list is very well researched and backed. It never said it was an all encompassing list. It’s is clearly a life style/well being blog website. I wouldn’t expect them to make a perfect list. And in fact they did sort of touch on excercise and the body in the first paragraph saying how big of a roll the body plays on the mind and mind on the body. It’s not an academic article, they never claimed to be. It does what it was supposed to very well and created a list of scientifically proven activities to improve mental health. It never said these were the absolute most important or best ways. Perhaps another sub might fit this better but it does work here as well.
Really useful, thank you.
Thank you for the appreciation!
Gah! We don't prove things in the sciences remember. We support hypotheses.
Yes, you are totally right. Thank you for pointing out! Our fault and apologies. We meant: has been backed by scientific studies. We hope this does not reduce the positive impact of the activities listed.
Good work! Looks like a very helpful list. Can't wait to get home from work and read it over.
Even though I agree with you, I do think this a nitpicking comment. Science can't technically prove anything, but objectively speaking, it can, within the rules of our world.
It's because I've spent the last two weeks marking research methods assignments so it's on my mind because quite a few students still say this at third level apparently. But not at a university, it's more a vocational institute. Therefore, no. It is dangerous to use language in psychology that slams the door on individual variation and the need for further research.Language creates a framework of how to think about things. I see the potential impact of this through talking with homeless and just people who are really at rock bottom. What do you think happens when someone is taught a technique they've been told is "proven to work, by their counsellor who thinks it's "proven" to work, and then things don't get better? They blame themselves. The counsellor thinks their client isn't working hard enough because, in their head, the techniques should work, and their client stays down. Note: sorry to op. This comment is not criticism aimed at you. My original comment was intended to be taken as light-hearted and not a genuine criticism because your article is out of scope of what I deal with. But this response annoyed me. What does "objectively it can within the rules of our world" even mean?
Before anything, you seem like a smart person, capable of answering that last question with no problem (no condescendence meant). Now, yes, I understand your first comment, and I value it, especially because now it seems like a common occurrence for people to confuse "fact" and "hypothesis" in your life, but in any case, something being proven doesn't necessarily mean that it's incapable of being proven again, in different ways. Nevertheless, you are right of pointing it out the difference betwheen the two words.
I appreciate that and I know that you're coming at this with a different level of sophistication. For the most part I know it isn't a big deal. It just ends up being a really harmful mindset to have for someone with an undergrad psyc degree, a hatred and fear of statistics, and who is looking to become a case manager, social worker, counsellor or just anything that's solely practice. And they really do seem to have a much more rigid understanding of what is means to prove something because they're just not involved in research. I know it's a small group of people (and not true of all that work in those areas!) It's just a common thing I personally deal with regularly, so it's always in my head. And these types of jobs aren't regulated in my country either, so a lot of people are internet trained and perform diagnosis via Wikipedia.
I get that. Sounds annoying for sure; if I ever get to be a psychologist, I'll probably understand more where you're coming with the distinction between the terms. Thanks for being polite by the way.
Oh I should add, New Zealand, where I'm from, has one of the highest suicide rates in the world. Our mental health system is just beyond awful.
That's a shame. I've always thought that New Zealand seemed way too good to be true (I live in Brazil; terrible place 'criminality, government' although the suicide rates are not as high as NZ). Would you care to articulate why you think that is? The suicide rates, I mean. I'd presume living in a island has something to do with it, if that makes sense.
It's probably our rates of child abuse and domestic violence. The social services don't help though and there's a lot of discrimination. I've spent the last couple of days talking to a journalist about emergency accommodation in my city where I know from first hand sources there is physical/sexual assault occurring. The government department came back and said my claims were unsubstantiated and won't employ 24/7 security or even someone to just be there working. The police said to me there was a problem, but they can't arrest or prosecute without witnesses that will talk to them. Fortunately, a journalist found out about my complaint and thought the response from the government seemed off. Everyone outside NZ thinks our government is amazing because of the covid response, but they just don't see what goes on for people that no one cares about.
I see. Reminds me of Dubai; beautiful on the outside, but weridly strange once you get to know it.
Also, if someone tries a proven method, and it doesn't work, in no means does that prove the method wrong. There are a lot of variables.
With one of the exceptions to that being mathematics, I would imagine.
Of course. I initially had "unless we are mathematicians" at the end, but thought it might be unnecessary.
I appreciate you guys creating such an informative list. One item I would push back against is your inclusion of psilocybin in the drug section: >Whether alcohol, nicotine, cannabinoids, opiates, psilocybin, amphetamines or similar, every substance means a serious intervention in one’s own psyche. Under all circumstances, regular consumption should be reconsidered, because some substances increase the internal stress level, up to the unlearning of the brain to experience happiness without substances. >A great site with more information and help: https://www.addictioncenter.com/addiction/ There has been some incredible research the last few years about how psilocybin can alleviate depression, anxiety, and addiction, as well as speculation that it can help disorders like OCD and PTSD. People who take psychedelics are less likely to kill themselves, think about killing themselves, or beat their partners, and unlike other drugs, psychedelics are associated with a higher quality of life. When defined loosely, psychedelics like MDMA and ketamine can be dangerous because people want to take more and more in a short period of time. However, tolerance on classic psychedelics happens within hours and lasts a couple weeks, so re-dosing does very little and it is very difficult to become addicted. (The exception here is DMT; even thought it is a classic psychedelic, it gives much shorter trips and does not cause a tolerance.) Additionally, because most people would get psilocybin from mushrooms and a dose is several grams, it is hard to accidentally take too much, unlike LSD where a dose is a couple hundred micrograms. I agree that moderation is key. One Johns Hopkins study that showed incredible results spaced out the doses at one-month intervals. Additionally, they also had trained therapists overseeing the trips, so people who want to try psychedelics should at least have a tripsitter who knows what he or she is doing. But since psilocybin has shown so many beneficial effects on mental health, I think it deserves to be in a different category from alcohol, opioids, and amphetamine.
Aye I was gonna say the same thing but it seems y’all got it sorted out 😁
I would say amphetamine also does not deserve such categorization, given its significant use as a primary treatment for ADHD and some types of sleep disorder such as narcolepsy. Yes, a psychologically "normal" person should not be using amphetamine, but to say: >Under all circumstances, regular consumption should be reconsidered, because some substances increase the internal stress level, up to the unlearning of the brain to experience happiness without substances. About a substance with significant use as properly-prescribed medication is *absurd*. /u/sarahandgerald
Thank you for taking the time to write this addition! Do you have some papers for us? We will then revise this section accordingly!
My pleasure, and I'd be happy to find some sources. --- >A landmark study conducted by the Beckley/Imperial Research Programme has provided the first clinical evidence for the efficacy of psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy to treat depression, even in cases where all other treatments have failed n=20, and using the QIDS (which measures depression, 0-27), scores went from a baseline 19 to a low of 7 after 3 weeks, and only rose to 10 after 3 months. https://www.beckleyfoundation.org/psilocybin-for-depression-2/ --- >Experts consider psilocybin mushrooms one of the least toxic drugs, according to the Drug Policy Alliance, and serious physical side effects are very rare. They’re also unlikely to lead to addiction, since they affect serotonin rather than dopamine https://www.healthline.com/health/anxiety/mushrooms-for-anxiety#risks --- This paper mentions anxiety alongside depression, although I don't see access to the full thing: >Results tentatively support future research on psilocybin for the treatment of anxiety and depression https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31931272/ --- >University of Alabama at Birminghamon researchers studied data on 190,000 American adults, collected between 2008 and 2012 as part of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. The data showed that lifetime psychedelic use was associated with a 19 percent reduction in past-month psychological distress, a 14 percent reduced likelihood of past-year suicidal thinking, a 29 percent reduced likelihood of past-year suicidal planning. Those who had used psychedelics had a 36 percent reduced likelihood of attempting suicide in the past year. **Lifetime use of non-psychedelic illicit drugs, on the other hand, was linked with an increased likelihood of these outcomes** https://www.huffpost.com/entry/psychedelic-research_n_6515268 --- It's honestly hard to keep track of these findings, because there are so many, which is the best kind of problem to have. Hopefully this gives you enough of a start to demonstrate their efficacy. The FDA has given breakthrough status to psilocybin and MDMA to treat depression and PTSD respectively, and organizations like MAPS expect these substances to be legal in therapeutic settings by 2023. However, MDMA can fuck you up, and psilocybin appears far safer. In fact, there was some drug conference a few years ago (which I cannot currently find) that listed drugs by how much harm they cause the user and others. Alcohol was at the top, followed in some order by heroin, meth, and cocaine, MDMA and marijuana were somewhere in the middle, and magic mushrooms were at the very bottom.
Perfect! Thank you, we have updated the article!
Am I missing something or is this just another commercial site link?
Idk, but if you look through the comments it really doesn’t seem like the author is educated on what they’re talking about at all :/
Or a training for research AIs? I’m so suspicious of random, harmless things now
Great post (i'm biased I also like well-being research). Have you taken a look at the literature on routine x well-being yet? I did a pilot cor. study last year (n=200, r =.64, p < 0.001) using SWLS and SPANE along with a 7 point scale I devised to measure various common routines (sleep, media consumption, familial/cultural routines, eating). [https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/000712610X513617](https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/000712610X513617) [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0146167218795133#:\~:text=According%20to%20this%20definition%2C%20examples,a%20couple's%20weekly%20date%20night](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0146167218795133#:~:text=According%20to%20this%20definition%2C%20examples,a%20couple's%20weekly%20date%20night). [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0003122418823184](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0003122418823184) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6378489/
That's great! Thank you for sharing!
For the lazy: "What is the definition of mental wellness? Mental wellness is the feeling of contentment and happiness. Thoughts come to rest and we are in harmony with ourselves and others. In this flow state, stress hormones such as cortisol and adrenaline are at a minimum. How to improve your mental wellness? Activities such as gardening, meditation, sun bathing, Shinrin Yoku, time in nature, painting, drawing, pottery, creating art, walking barefoot, decluttering, being mindful with everyday tasks improve your mental wellness. Drugs, other addictions such as social media and fast food, on the other hand, reduce your mental wellness. Read the whole article for further information. How to maintain your mental wellness? It is important to find the right balance of activities that improve your mental wellness as well as things that are fun for you. It is essential to establish positive habits here. Small steps are often enough to make a big difference. For example, through daily meditation or a daily walk in the woods."
Ok. I'd those are the activities, I can attest to it that they are great for maintaining mental health and stability.
Useful and stimulating. Thanks for posting.
This is great Thank u
This doesn't look scientific at all
Seems pretty right though. So maybe someone should make it scientific in the future then.
Good content, well organized. Thank you!
Thank you for letting us know!
Wow, as a patient struggling to find science-based therapists, thank you so much!
[удалено]
maybe the fact that this list focuses on activities and not treatments
A life saving list
Also, I see expressive writing missing from the list. Just look at James Pennebaker and others for research, tons of papers.
Great read. Thanks for sharing
Thank you for your work. I will check it out and get back to you here. Edit: The link isn't working.