Rueger · Psychological bulletin 2016 · systematic review and meta-analysis · n=341 studies (273,149 participants)

A meta-analytic review of the association between perceived social support and depression in childhood and adolescence.

Cited 931 times in the scientific literature.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies (by design analogy, non-clinical CEBM)

PubMed 27504934 · doi:10.1037/bul0000058 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

Meta-analysis of 341 studies (19% unpublished; N = 273,149 participants) identified via PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, ERIC, ProQuest, and hand searches of 11 journals. The authors applied random-effects models to evaluate the association between perceived social support and depression in youth, comparing general benefits (main effects) and stress-buffering models, and testing moderators such as support source, gender, and medical illness.

What was found

The overall pooled effect size across 341 studies was r = .26 (95% CI [.24, .28]). Findings robustly supported the general benefits model, while the stress-buffering model was supported primarily among medically ill youth. Effect sizes varied across sources of support, and gender differences were largely absent.

Why it matters

This large meta-analysis demonstrates that perceived social support broadly protects youth against depression across contexts and shows that the benefit applies equally to boys and girls.

Limits

The abstract does not provide numerical effect sizes for specific support sources, stress contexts, or subgroups. Because the primary studies are largely observational, causality cannot be definitively established from the meta-analytic correlation alone.

Cited by