Effects of social support on depression risk during the COVID-19 pandemic: What support types and for whom?

Introduction

Rates of depression have increased worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic (1), highlighting the importance of identifying modifiable factors for targeted approaches to prevention and intervention during a global crisis. Social support is a robust protective factor for depression, both in general (2) and during times of stress (3), demonstrating promise for reducing the population-level burden of depression during a highly stressful pandemic. Accordingly, a growing number of studies on the overall relationship between social support and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic, have linked greater social support to reduced risk for depression and other negative mental health outcomes (4–6).

However, previous studies have been limited for several reasons. First, many have relied on relatively modest samples that were not followed longitudinally. Second, studies of elevated depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic have not consistently explored subtypes of social support, which include tangible supports characterized by the availability of instrumental help for everyday or crisis needs; emotional supports characterized by the availability of a listening or confiding ear; informational supports characterized by the availability of advice or knowledge from others; and positive social interactions (7). For instance, during a pandemic, tangible support may become more emotionally salient than other forms of support, due to the risk of illness, contagion, and other daily disruptions, while the relevance of positive social interactions may be diminished in the context of pervasive social distancing. Understanding which type(s) of social support most influence depression risk during the pandemic could highlight which aspects should be addressed in both individual- and population-level interventions. Third, it is still unclear which groups may benefit from increased social support. For example, the protective role of social support may vary by intrinsic factors such as age and sex, which may influence both depression risk and how social support impacts this risk, or by pre-pandemic factors such as prior mental health histories, which may increase vulnerability to subsequent distress. Additionally, risk factors may emerge during the pandemic such as financial stressors (e.g., loss of income), which either limit one’s ability to benefit from social support or indicate where social supports are particularly needed. A better understanding of potential effect modifiers, across a range of intrinsic, pre-pandemic, and during-pandemic characteristics, could provide more insight into where interventions aimed at enhancing social support could have the largest impact. Knowledge, for example, about whether pre-existing or concurrent risk factors are more salient during the pandemic could inform the targeting of such interventions.

More detailed work in large prospective cohorts is needed to quantify the extent to which social support may promote resilience to elevated depression symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, and specifically, to identify which types of support may prove most helpful, and who might benefit most. One opportunity to rigorously investigate these questions is within the All of Us Research Program, an ongoing, diverse US nationwide research cohort where a longitudinal survey focused on mental health, coping, and other experiences including social support was administered in the first year of the pandemic. Using longitudinal data across the first three survey waves completed by All of Us Research Program participants (N=69,066), we tested associations between perceived social support and its subtypes with depression risk, and assessed potential effect modification by intrinsic (e.g., sex, age), pre-pandemic (e.g., prior mood disorder), and pandemic-related (e.g., financial stress) risk factors.

Methods

Results

Sample characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Participants were predominantly female (66%) and self-reported White (82%), with an average age of 59 years (SD=16), with 8% reporting any pandemic-related financial stressors. On average, 16% of study participants met criteria for clinically elevated (i.e., moderate-to-severe) symptoms of depression across the survey months of May, June, and July, and 14% of the sample were identified to have a pre-pandemic mood disorder diagnosis based on linked EHR data.

After adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors, overall social support was inversely associated with depression (aOR [95%CI]=0.44 [0.42-0.45], p<2.0×10⁻¹⁶) (Table 2). As shown in Figure 1a, the predicted probabilities of depression were elevated at low levels of reported social support and declined towards zero at the highest levels of social support. This was consistent with lagged sensitivity analyses, where overall social support at baseline was prospectively associated with depression in the subsequent one- or two-month windows (aORs 0.67-0.68; Supplementary Table 5), even after excluding individuals with elevated symptoms at baseline.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Predicted probabilities of moderate-severe depressive symptoms at different levels of overall and subtype-specific social support (standardized) : (a) overall social support (top left), tangible support (top right), (c) emotional/informational support (bottom left), (d) positive social interaction (bottom right).

The emotional/informational support subtype (Figure 1c) showed the largest inverse association with depression (aOR [95%CI]=0.42 [0.41-0.43], p<2.0×10⁻¹⁶), followed by positive social interaction (Figure 1d) (aOR [95%CI]=0.43 [0.41-0.44], p<2.0×10⁻¹⁶) (Table 2). Tangible support (Figure 1b) was also associated with a smaller but nonetheless significant reduction in depression odds (aOR [95%CI]=0.63 [0.61-0.65], p<2.0×10⁻¹⁶). When examining combinations of social support subtypes, a marked dose-response gradient (Figure 3; Table 3) was observed. Compared to those reporting lower support on all subtypes, those with higher tangible support alone showed a modest reduction in the odds of depression (aOR [95% CI]=0.89 [0.81-0.98]) compared to those with higher positive social interaction (aOR [95% CI]=0.43 [0.35-0.51]) or emotional/informational support (aOR [95% CI]=0.38 [0.34-0.44]) alone. Endorsing higher levels of at least two subtypes of support was linked to greater reductions in the odds of depression, with a particularly strong protective association among those endorsing both emotional/informational support and positive social interaction (aOR [95% CI]=0.22 [0.19-0.25]). However, endorsing higher levels of all three subtypes of support appeared most protective (aOR [95% CI]=0.15 [0.14-0.16]).

Lastly, we identified overall effect modification by sex (β=-0.075, interaction p=0.017), age (β=0.10, interaction p=0.002), and COVID-related financial stress (β=0.088, interaction p=0.011), though not by pre-pandemic mood disorder (β=-0.048, interaction p=0.19). As shown in Figure 2 and supported by stratified results (Supplementary Table 3), female participants and younger individuals had higher (two-to four-fold) predicted probabilities of depression than male participants and older individuals, respectively. In both cases, these effects appeared to attenuate at higher levels of social support. A similar pattern was observed for those reporting any pandemic-related financial stressors compared to those without any such stressors.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Variations in the predicted probabilities of depression at different levels of overall social support (standardized) by (a) sex assigned at birth, (b) current age, (c) pre-existing mood disorder diagnosis (lifetime), and (d) COVID-related financial stress.

Discussion

In a large prospective cohort of 69,066 adults participating in the nationwide All of Us Research Program, higher levels of social support during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with a 57% reduction in the odds of elevated depressive symptoms. Greater perceived support in multiple domains appeared most protective, with individuals reporting higher levels across tangible, emotional/informational, and positive social interaction supports showing a more than six-fold reduction in the odds of depression compared to those without. Moreover, female participants, younger individuals, and those reporting pandemic-related financial stressors showed generally increased odds of depression that were attenuated among those with higher levels of social support.

Among social support subtypes, examined both separately and in combination, emotional/informational support showed the largest protective association with depression, followed by positive social interactions, then tangible support. These findings are consistent with our prior analyses from the UK Biobank (16) showing that, among more than 100 potentially modifiable factors, confiding in others—which relates to the use and availability of emotional support—had the strongest protective association with incident depression in adults. This underscores the importance of trusted interpersonal outlets for mitigating depression risk, possibly via enhanced affect and cognitive regulation (17). Recent work in a longitudinal cohort found that perceived quality of one’s relationships was protectively associated with risk of psychiatric disorders during the pandemic (18), reinforcing the importance of social connection quality, not simply quantity. This is important to consider in the context of increased loneliness during the pandemic, which has also been linked to depression (19,20).

In addition to examining subtypes separately, we also probed the consequences of different subtype combinations of social support. In a dose-response fashion (Figure 3), compared to those reporting lower support on all three subtypes, individuals with higher support on all three subtypes showed the largest decrease in odds of depression, followed by those with higher support at least two subtypes, then those with higher support on one subtype alone. Most individuals endorsed support across all subtypes or none, though a sizeable subset of individuals (8.6%) endorsed higher tangible support alone. Tangible support was inversely associated with depression to a lesser degree compared to other subtypes. We hypothesized this association would have been stronger during the pandemic, given potential stressors of infection, illness, and quarantine that could incur practical challenges requiring assistance. Notably, we adjusted for demographic factors that could capture availability of tangible support in the home, including marital status, which may have attenuated observed effects.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Odds ratio estimates from the mixed-effects logistic regression analysis of social support subtype combinations and depression risk.

When either higher emotional support or positive social interaction was added to tangible support, the odds of depression were further halved. Interestingly, higher emotional support and positive social interaction together seemed to show greater protective relevance for depression versus either subtype alone—dropping from a roughly 2.8-fold reduction to 4.6-fold reduction in depression odds—even in the absence of substantial tangible support. Endorsing higher positive social interaction alone was relatively rare (<2%), perhaps because time spent in positive experiences with others may naturally facilitate asking for tangible and/or emotional support; consistent with this, positive social interactions showed the highest correlations with both subtypes. Overall, results suggest that boosting social support on multiple fronts could produce the largest reductions in mental health risk. Social support-enhancing interventions often focus on the creation/use of support groups that provide a safe space for individuals to share concerns or interests (21,22) and may also include individual skill-building and network identification (23,24). Identifying which social support domains are perceived as high-quality versus lacking for a given individual may help in tailoring interventions.

Evidence of effect modification was observed for our studied intrinsic factors (i.e., age and sex) and during-pandemic factor (i.e., financial stressors) but not pre-pandemic factor (i.e., prior mood disorder diagnosis). Female participants generally had higher risk of elevated depressive symptoms compared to male participants, but showed larger reductions in depression odds in the presence of higher social support. This is consistent with a recent longitudinal study that also observed stronger protective associations between social participation/trust and any depressive symptoms during the pandemic among women versus men (25). Importantly, we expand prior work by identifying additional potential effect modifiers, including age and financial stressors related to the pandemic. Probing these results revealed that social support was linked to larger reductions in depression odds among participants at higher risk of elevated depressive symptoms during the pandemic (e.g., younger individuals, or those endorsing pandemic-related financial stressors). Thus, adults more vulnerable to depression—for intrinsic or environmental reasons—may benefit more from the protective effects of social support.

Strengths of this study included its longitudinal, multi-wave design in a large, diverse cohort with linked prior data and ongoing research participation, and nuanced operationalization of social support using an established survey instrument (7). While some studies may focus on the quantity of supportive individuals, studying perceived quality of support is an important feature of our research, as social support may be concentrated within a few individuals providing high-quality support. In addition, our study assesses the relationship of social support to clinically elevated symptoms of depression, which incur the greatest impairment and disability requiring prevention at the population level.

Several limitations should be noted. First, as with many survey instruments, our measure of social support captures self-reported perceptions of support, which may be influenced by concurrent depressed mood, thereby inflating the association. Notwithstanding, our primary analyses were consistent with lagged models in which baseline social support was associated with subsequent depression even after removing individuals with baseline elevated depression symptoms, suggesting the effect was not purely driven by contemporaneous mood states; however, further causal inference analyses are warranted (26). Second, we selected available variables from the COPE survey to examine their potential role as effect modifiers, but there may be other unmeasured intrinsic or pandemic-related factors (e.g., lockdown exposure) that may also influence the association between social support and depression. Our pre-pandemic mood disorder variable was also conservatively defined using linked EHR data which was available for most, but not all, participants. Third, given that most individuals were research volunteers with Internet access who were relatively well-educated and endorsed minimal financial stressors related to the pandemic, our sample may not generalize to more disadvantaged populations, though we used inverse-probability weighting as an attempt to match COPE survey participants more closely with the broader and more diverse All of Us Research Program study cohort.

Conclusion

Social connection is increasingly recognized as a key public health priority (27). While the links between social support and depression are well established (2), a more nuanced understanding of this relationship—including which support subtypes are most relevant for depression risk, and who may benefit most, during a highly stressful global crisis—could inform targeted interventions to enhance resilience and reduce the population-level burden of depression. Individuals reporting higher levels of social support were at substantially reduced risk of elevated depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. The perceived availability of emotional support and positive social interactions—and their combination—more so than tangible assistance, was key. Individuals more vulnerable to depression (e.g., women, younger individuals, and those experiencing financial stressors) may particularly benefit from enhanced social support during a major stressor, supporting a precision prevention approach.