The genomic impact of kindness to self vs. others: A randomized controlled trial

Regan, Annie; Fritz, Megan M.; Walsh, Lisa C.; Lyubomirsky, Sonja; Cole, Steven W.

doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2022.07.159

Cited by 9 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…29,36,38,41,45,[47][48][49][50][51]53,56 Among the 13 studies (43.3%) that focused on other outcomes, all 13 reported a positive association. 32,33,35,37,39,40,[42][43][44]46,52,54,55 Prosocial interventions were also shown to have the potential to positively impact community solidarity among participants. Community solidarity is the individual feeling of belonging to a specific group.…”

Section: Results Of Mixed-methods Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We identified 24 randomized clinical trials, 3 nonrandomized studies, and 3 mixed-methods studies . Most of the studies (17 [56.7%]) analyzed mental health and well-being as the primary health outcome .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the studies (17 [56.7%]) analyzed mental health and well-being as the primary health outcome . Other studies examined disease screening (5 studies [16.7%]), physical activity (2 [6.7%]), and biomarkers (alanine transaminase, conserved transcriptional response to adversity [ CTRA ], leukocyte telomere length) (3 [10.0%]) (Table 1). Nineteen studies (63.3%) were in high-income countries, and none were in low-income countries.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We identified 5 types of prosocial interventions—acts of kindness, charitable donation, prosocial spending, expressions of kindness, and pay-it-forward. Twelve studies (40.0%) focused on acts of kindness . A total of 7 studies included cash gifts to others, with 3 (10.0%) focused on charitable donations and 4 (13.3%) on prosocial spending .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…40 CTRA gene regulation was most sensitive to the social target of kindness (other people vs oneself) rather than the production of kind acts per se, with favorable effects observed in those who performed kind acts for others but not in those who performed kind acts for themselves. 37 Intervention group participants described an increase in self-esteem via engaging in acts of kindness. Many noted that they felt like a good person and/or better about themselves for having engaged in acts of kindness.…”

Section: Internal Rewardmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Prosocial Interventions and Health Outcomes

Byrne,

Tan,

et al. 2023

JAMA Netw Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceProsocial interventions encourage voluntary actions that benefit others. Community solidarity in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, expanding mutual aid programs, and health workforce issues have accelerated prosocial health interventions.ObjectiveTo investigate the association of prosocial interventions with health outcomes in clinical trials and observational studies.Data SourcesIn this systematic review and meta-analysis informed by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 5 databases (MEDLINE [via PubMed], Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Scopus) were searched from database inception through February 23, 2023. The search included terms for altruism and prosocial behaviors, health outcomes, and study type.Study SelectionIncluded studies, determined by multiple reviewers, compared health outcomes in a prosocial intervention group with a nonintervention group.Data Extraction and SynthesisFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline, data extraction and synthesis captured quantitative and qualitative data. To pool data from quantitative studies, random-effects meta-analyses were used to estimate the impact of prosocial interventions. To combine data from quantitative and qualitive studies, data were transformed into qualitative narratives using meta-aggregation.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcome was whether prosocial interventions were associated with improved health outcomes. Barriers to and facilitators of implementation of these interventions were assessed.ResultsThe search identified 5229 citations; 30 studies were included in the synthesis. Studies indicated that prosocial interventions were associated with positive health outcomes for givers (17 studies [56.7]) and recipients (8 [26.7%]). Prosocial interventions included acts of kindness (12 studies [40.0%]), cash gifts (7 [23.3%]), pay-it-forward approaches (6 [20.0%]), and expressions of kindness (5 [16.7%]). Improvements were reported in depression, testing for sexually transmitted diseases, vaccine uptake, physical activity, and individual biomarkers. Data from 6 studies (20.0%) demonstrated that pay-it-forward approaches were associated with increased uptake of diagnostic tests or vaccines among vulnerable groups (moderate certainty of evidence). Data from 14 studies (46.7%) suggested that community connectedness facilitated prosocial interventions. Shared vulnerabilities among groups (eg, sexual minority individuals, older adults) may provide a context for collective mobilization to improve health in local communities.Conclusions and RelevanceThis systematic review and meta-analysis found that prosocial interventions were associated with improved health outcomes among vulnerable groups and have been useful for addressing health disparities. Further research is needed to develop and evaluate prosocial interventions.

show abstract