BACKGROUND: Living with and self-managing a long-term condition implicates a diversity of networked relationships. This qualitative study examines the personal communities of support of people with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We conducted 170 biographical interviews in six European countries (Bulgaria, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and UK) to explore social support and networks. Analysis was framed with reference to three predetermined social support mechanisms: the negotiation of support enabling engagement with healthy practices, navigation to sources of support and collective efficacy. Each interview was summarized to describe navigation and negotiation of participants' networks and the degree of collective efficacy. RESULTS: Analysis highlighted the similarities and differences between countries and provided insights into capacities of networks to support self-management. The network support mechanisms were identified in all interviews, and losses and gains in networks impacted on diabetes management. There were contextual differences between countries, most notably the impact of financial austerity on network dynamics. Four types of network are suggested: generative, diverse and beneficial to individuals; proxy, network members undertook diabetes management work; avoidant, support not engaged with; and struggling, diabetes management a struggle or not prioritized. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to differentiate types of network input to living with and managing diabetes. Recognizing the nature of active, generative aspects of networks support is likely to have relevance for self-management support interventions either through encouraging continuing development and maintenance of these contacts or intervening to address struggling networks through introducing the means to connect people to additional sources of support.
BACKGROUND: Living with and self-managing a long-term condition implicates a diversity of networked relationships. This qualitative study examines the personal communities of support of people with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We conducted 170 biographical interviews in six European countries (Bulgaria, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and UK) to explore social support and networks. Analysis was framed with reference to three predetermined social support mechanisms: the negotiation of support enabling engagement with healthy practices, navigation to sources of support and collective efficacy. Each interview was summarized to describe navigation and negotiation of participants' networks and the degree of collective efficacy. RESULTS: Analysis highlighted the similarities and differences between countries and provided insights into capacities of networks to support self-management. The network support mechanisms were identified in all interviews, and losses and gains in networks impacted on diabetes management. There were contextual differences between countries, most notably the impact of financial austerity on network dynamics. Four types of network are suggested: generative, diverse and beneficial to individuals; proxy, network members undertook diabetes management work; avoidant, support not engaged with; and struggling, diabetes management a struggle or not prioritized. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to differentiate types of network input to living with and managing diabetes. Recognizing the nature of active, generative aspects of networks support is likely to have relevance for self-management support interventions either through encouraging continuing development and maintenance of these contacts or intervening to address struggling networks through introducing the means to connect people to additional sources of support.
Authors: Christian Blickem; Peter Bower; Joanne Protheroe; Anne Kennedy; Ivaylo Vassilev; Caroline Sanders; Sue Kirk; Carolyn Chew-Graham; Anne Rogers Journal: Health Soc Care Community Date: 2010-12-15
Authors: Anne Kennedy; David Reeves; Peter Bower; Victoria Lee; Elizabeth Middleton; Gerry Richardson; Caroline Gardner; Claire Gately; Anne Rogers Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Sarah M Dennis; Nicholas Zwar; Rhonda Griffiths; Martin Roland; Iqbal Hasan; Gawaine Powell Davies; Mark Harris Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2008-04-21 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Helena H Laroche; Matthew M Davis; Jane Forman; Gloria Palmisano; Heather Schacht Reisinger; Cheryl Tannas; Michael Spencer; Michele Heisler Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Antonis A Kousoulis; Evridiki Patelarou; Sue Shea; Christina Foss; Ingrid A Ruud Knutsen; Elka Todorova; Poli Roukova; Mari Carmen Portillo; María J Pumar-Méndez; Agurtzane Mujika; Anne Rogers; Ivaylo Vassilev; Manuel Serrano-Gil; Christos Lionis Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-10-02 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Christian Blickem; Anne Kennedy; Ivaylo Vassilev; Rebecca Morris; Helen Brooks; Praksha Jariwala; Tom Blakeman; Anne Rogers Journal: Health Expect Date: 2013-06-03 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Juliet Aweko; Jeroen De Man; Pilvikki Absetz; Claes-Göran Östenson; Stefan Swartling Peterson; Helle Mölsted Alvesson; Meena Daivadanam Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-08-22 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Jan Koetsenruijter; Jan van Lieshout; Christos Lionis; Maria Carmen Portillo; Ivo Vassilev; Elka Todorova; Christina Foss; Manuel Serrano Gil; Ingrid Ruud Knutsen; Agapi Angelaki; Agurtzane Mujika; Poli Roukova; Anne Kennedy; Anne Rogers; Michel Wensing Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marion L Penn; Anne P Kennedy; Ivaylo I Vassilev; Carolyn A Chew-Graham; Joanne Protheroe; Anne Rogers; Tom Monks Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2015-09-02 Impact factor: 2.497