A randomised controlled trial of the Nextdoor Kind Challenge: a study protocol

Michelle H Lim, Pamela Qualter, Alexandra Hennessey, Ben J Smith, Taylah Argent, Julianne Holt-Lunstad, Michelle H Lim, Pamela Qualter, Alexandra Hennessey, Ben J Smith, Taylah Argent, Julianne Holt-Lunstad

Abstract

Background: Community interventions are often promoted as a way of reducing loneliness and social isolation in our neighbourhoods. However, those community interventions are rarely examined within rigorous study designs. One strategy that holds the potential to reduce loneliness and can promote health and wellbeing is doing acts of kindness. The current study involves evaluating the impact of kindness acts on loneliness in community-dwelling individuals using an online social networking platform.

Methods: This study is made up of three randomised controlled trials conducted in three countries. Each randomised controlled trial has two arms (intervention vs waitlist control) and is designed to compare the effectiveness of the KIND challenge, which involves doing at least one act of kindness per week within a four-week period. This study will recruit users of an online community, be randomised online, and will be conducted using online assessments. We will first explore the effects of the intervention on the primary outcome of loneliness, followed by secondary outcomes, social isolation, neighbour relationship quality and contact, mental health symptoms, stress, quality of life, and positive affect. Further, we will assess the feasibility, acceptability, and safety of the KIND Challenge.

Discussion: This study, designed to evaluate the impact of kindness on the community, will be the first large scale randomised control trial conducted across three countries, Australia, UK, and USA. It will examine the potential of community-led interventions to reduce loneliness, improve social isolation, and promote neighbourhood cohesion, health, and wellbeing, which is especially crucial during the COVID-19 public health crisis.

Trial registration: Clinical Trials Registry. NCT04398472 . Registered 21st May 2020.

Keywords: Community interventions; Mental health; Physical health; Randomised controlled trial.

Conflict of interest statement

Professor Julianne Holt-Lunstad is on the Nextdoor Neighborhood Vitality Board. The other authors declare no conflict of interest in relation to the project.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CONSORT diagram showing trial design for each country, UA, UK and Australia
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Nextdoor KIND Challege primary (i.e proximal) and secondary (i.e distal) outcomes

References

    1. Pantell M, Rehkopf D, Jutte D, Syme SL, Balmes J, Adler N. Social isolation: a predictor of mortality comparable to traditional clinical risk factors. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(11):2056–2062. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301261.
    1. Grant N, Hamer M, Steptoe A. Social isolation and stress-related cardiovascular, lipid, and cortisol responses. Ann Behav Med. 2009;37(1):29–37. doi: 10.1007/s12160-009-9081-z.
    1. Lim MH, Eres R, Vasan S. Understanding loneliness in the twenty-first century: an update on correlates, risk factors, and potential solutions. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2020;55(7):793–810. doi: 10.1007/s00127-020-01889-7.
    1. Henriksen J, Larsen ER, Mattisson C, Andersson NW. Loneliness, health and mortality. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2019;28(2):234–239. doi: 10.1017/S2045796017000580.
    1. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Baker M, Harris T, Stephenson D. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10(2):227–237. doi: 10.1177/1745691614568352.
    1. Qualter P, Brown SL, Munn P, Rotenberg KJ. Childhood loneliness as a predictor of adolescent depressive symptoms: an 8-year longitudinal study. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2010;19(6):493–501. doi: 10.1007/s00787-009-0059-y.
    1. Qualter P, Brown SL, Rotenberg KJ, Vanhalst J, Harris RA, Goossens L, Bangee M, Munn P. Trajectories of loneliness during childhood and adolescence: predictors and health outcomes. J Adolesc. 2013;36(6):1283–1293. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.01.005.
    1. Hawkley LC, Masi CM, Berry JD, Cacioppo JT. Loneliness is a unique predictor of age-related differences in systolic blood pressure. Psychol Aging. 2006;21(1):152–164. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.21.1.152.
    1. Leigh-Hunt N, Bagguley D, Bash K, Turner V, Turnbull S, Valtorta N, Caan W. An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation and loneliness. Public Health. 2017;152:157–171. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2017.07.035.
    1. Tomaka J, Thompson S, Palacios R. The relation of social isolation, loneliness, and social support to disease outcomes among the elderly. J Aging Health. 2006;18(3):359–384. doi: 10.1177/0898264305280993.
    1. Qualter P, Vanhalst J, Harris R, Van Roekel E, Lodder G, Bangee M, et al. Loneliness across the life span. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10(2):250–264. doi: 10.1177/1745691615568999.
    1. Bulmer M. Neighbours and friends: sociability, isolation and loneli-ness as factors in the differential provision of the neighbour-hood care. Int J Sociol Soc Policy. 1985;5(3):51–66. doi: 10.1108/eb012990.
    1. Cicognani E, Pirini C, Keyes C, Joshanloo M, Rostami R, Nosratabadi M. Social participation, sense of community and social well being: a study on American, Italian and Iranian university students. Soc Indic Res. 2008;89(1):97–112. doi: 10.1007/s11205-007-9222-3.
    1. Parsfield M, Morris D, Bola M, Knapp M, Park AL, Yoshioka G, et al. Community capital: the value of connected communities. London: RSA; 2015.
    1. VicHealth . Increasing social connections. Report No.: C-071-CO-4. Victoria: VicHealth; 2012.
    1. Stepanikova I, Nie NH, He X. Time on the internet at home, loneliness, and life satisfaction: evidence from panel time-diary data. Comput Hum Behav. 2010;26(3):329–338. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.002.
    1. Weiser EB. The functions of internet use and their social and psychological consequences. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2001;4(6):723–743. doi: 10.1089/109493101753376678.
    1. Campaign to End Loneliness. Alone in the crowd: loneliness and diversity.London: Campaign to End Loneliness; 2015. Available from: .
    1. Ciocarlan A, Masthoff J, Oren N. Kindness is contagious: study into exploring engagement and adapting persuasive games for wellbeing. In: UMAP 2018 - Proceedings of the 26th conference on user modeling, adaptation and personalization. Association for Computing Machinery; 2018. p. 311–9. 10.1145/3209219.3209233.
    1. Higgins I, Collard S, Kent L. Coronavirus pandemic sparks outpouring of kindness, community spirit and pickled carrots. Australia: ABC news; 2020.
    1. Mayoh L. Random acts of COVID-19 kindness: how to help feed our medics. Australia: The Daily Telegraph; 2020.
    1. Otake K, Shimai S, Tanaka-Matsumi J, Otsui K, Fredrickson BL. Happy people become happier through kindness: a counting kindnesses intervention. J Happiness Stud. 2006;7(3):361–375. doi: 10.1007/s10902-005-3650-z.
    1. Alden LE, Trew JL. If it makes you happy: engaging in kind acts increases positive affect in socially anxious individuals. Emotion. 2013;13(1):64–75. doi: 10.1037/a0027761.
    1. O’Connell BH, O’Shea D, Gallagher S. Enhancing social relationships through positive psychology activities: a randomised controlled trial. J Posit Psychol. 2016;11(2):149–162. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2015.1037860.
    1. Seligman ME, Csikszentmihalyi M. Positive psychology. An introduction. Am Psychol. 2000;55(1):5–14. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.5.
    1. Sin NL, Lyubomirsky S. Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: a practice-friendly meta-analysis. J Clin Psychol. 2009;65(5):467–487. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20593.
    1. Lim MH, Gleeson JFM, Rodebaugh TL, Eres R, Long KM, Casey K, et al. A pilot digital intervention targeting loneliness in young people with psychosis. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2019;55:887–889.
    1. Lim MH, Rodebaugh TL, Eres R, Long K, Penn DL, Gleeson JF. A pilot digital intervention targeting loneliness in youth mental health. Front Psychiatry. 2019. 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00604.
    1. Lim MH, Penn DL, Thomas N, Gleeson JFM. Is loneliness a feasible treatment target in psychosis? Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2020;55(7):901–906. doi: 10.1007/s00127-019-01731-9.
    1. Cohen S, Mermelstein R, Kamarck T, Hoberman HM. Measuring the functional components of social support. In: Sarason IG, Sarason BR, editors. Social support: theory, research and applications. Dordrecht: Springer; 1985. pp. 73–94.
    1. Seiger CP, Wiese BS. Social support, unfulfilled expectations, and affective well-being on return to employment. J Marriage Fam. 2011;73(2):446–458. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00817.x.
    1. Gottlieb BH, Bergen AE. Social support concepts and measures. J Psychosom Res. 2010;69(5):511–520. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.10.001.
    1. Wong ST, Yoo GJ, Stewart AL. Examining the types of social support and the actual sources of support in older Chinese and Korean immigrants. Int J Aging Hum Dev. 2005;61(2):105–121. doi: 10.2190/AJ62-QQKT-YJ47-B1T8.
    1. Russell DW. UCLA loneliness scale (version 3): reliability, validity, and factor structure. J Pers Assess. 1996;66(1):20–40. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2.
    1. Lubben J, Gironda M. Centrality of social ties to the health and well-being of older adults. In: Berkman B, Harootyan L, editors. Social work and health care in an aging society. 2003. pp. 319–350.
    1. Martin KS, Rogers BL, Cook JT, Joseph HM. Social capital is associated with decreased risk of hunger. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58(12):2645–2654. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.09.026.
    1. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F. Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science. 1997;277(5328):918–924. doi: 10.1126/science.277.5328.918.
    1. Bateman LB, Fouad MN, Hawk B, Osborne T, Bae S, Eady S, Thompson J, Brantley W, Crawford L, Heider L, Schoenberger YMM. Examining neighborhood social cohesion in the context of community-based participatory research: descriptive findings from an academic-community partnership. Ethn Dis. 2017;27(Suppl 1):329–336. doi: 10.18865/ed.27.S1.329.
    1. Holt-Lunstad J, Uchino BN. Social ambivalence and disease (SAD): a theoretical model aimed at understanding the health implications of ambivalent relationships. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2019;14(6):941–966. doi: 10.1177/1745691619861392.
    1. Campo RA, Uchino BN, Holt-Lunstad J, Vaughn A, Reblin M, Smith TW. The assessment of positivity and negativity in social networks: the reliability and validity of the social relationships index. J Community Psychol. 2009;37(4):471–486. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20308.
    1. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL. The PHQ-9: a new depression diagnostic and severity measure. Psychiatr Ann. 2002;32(9):509–515. doi: 10.3928/0048-5713-20020901-06.
    1. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606–613. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x.
    1. Connor KM, Kobak KA, Churchill LE, Katzelnick D, Davidson JRT. Mini-SPIN: a brief screening assessment for generalized social anxiety disorder. Depress Anxiety. 2001;14(2):137–140. doi: 10.1002/da.1055.
    1. Schmidt S, Mühlan H, Power M. The EUROHIS-QOL 8-item index: psychometric results of a cross-cultural field study. Eur J Pub Health. 2005;16:420–428. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cki155.
    1. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;5:1063–1070. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.
    1. Roesch SC. Validity studies the factorial validity of trait positive affect scores: confirmatory factor analyses of unidimensional and multidimensional models. Educ Psychol Meas. 1998;58(3):451–466. doi: 10.1177/0013164498058003006.
    1. Cohen S, Williamson G, Spacapan S, Oskamp S. The social psychology of health: Claremont symposium on applied social psychology. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 1988. pp. 31–67.
    1. Warttig SL, Forshaw MJ, South J, White AK. New, normative, English-sample data for the short form perceived stress scale (PSS-4) J Health Psychol. 2013;18(12):1617–1628. doi: 10.1177/1359105313508346.
    1. Fancourt D, Steptoe A, Cadar D. Community engagement and dementia risk: time-to-event analyses from a national cohort study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2020;74(1):71–77. doi: 10.1136/jech-2019-213029.
    1. Dong N, Maynard R. PowerUp!: a tool for calculating minimum detectable effect sizes and minimum required sample sizes for experimental and quasi-experimental design studies. J Res Edu Eff. 2013;6(1):24–67.
    1. Mund M, Freuding MM, Möbius K, Horn N, Neyer FJ. The stability and change of loneliness across the life span: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2019;24:24–52. doi: 10.1177/1088868319850738.
    1. Zeller RA, Neal AG, Groat HT. On the reliability and stability of alienation measures: a longitudinal analysis. Soc Forces. 1980;58(4):1195–1204. doi: 10.2307/2577319.
    1. Funder DC, Ozer DJ. Evaluating effect size in psychological research: sense and nonsense. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci. 2019;2(2):156–168. doi: 10.1177/2515245919847202.
    1. Schäfer T, Schwarz MA. The meaningfullness of effect sizes in psychological research: differences between sub-disciplines and the impact of potential biases. Front Psychol. 2019;10:813. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00813.
    1. Tanner-Smith EE, Durlak JA, Marx RA. Empirically based mean effect size distributions for universal prevention programs targeting school-aged youth: a review of meta-analyses. Prev Sci. 2018;19(8):219–266. doi: 10.1007/s11121-018-0942-1.
    1. Masi CM, Chen H-Y, Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT. A meta-analysis of interventions to reduce loneliness. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2011;15(3):219–266. doi: 10.1177/1088868310377394.
    1. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus user’s guide: statistical analyses with latent variables, user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén; 2017.
    1. Gupta SK. Intention-to-treat concept: a review. Perspect Clin Res. 2011;2(3):109–112. doi: 10.4103/2229-3485.83221.
    1. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size slippages in randomised trials: exclusions and the lost and wayward. Lancet. 2002;359(9308):781–785. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07882-0.
    1. Pampaka M, Hutcheson G, Williams J. Handling missing data: analysis of a challenging data set using multiple imputation. Int J Res Meth Educ. 2016;39(1):19–37. doi: 10.1080/1743727X.2014.979146.
    1. NHMRC . National Statement on ethical conduct in human research 2007 (updated 2018) National Health and Medical Research Council: Canberra; 2007.
    1. Smith B, Lim MH. How the COVID-19 pandemic is focusing attention on loneliness and social isolation. Public Health Res Prac. 2020. 10.17061/phrp3022008.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere