| Literature DB >> 30305262 |
Fran Calvo1,2, Xavier Carbonell1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Web-based social networks are a powerful communicative element and their use is increasingly widespread. Persons living in extreme social exclusion such as individuals experiencing homelessness can benefit from the positive elements of communication and relationship associated with social networking sites.Entities:
Keywords: health; homelessness; individuals experiencing homelessness; satisfaction with life; self-efficacy; self-esteem; social networking sites; social skills
Year: 2018 PMID: 30305262 PMCID: PMC6231733 DOI: 10.2196/mental.9814
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Ment Health ISSN: 2368-7959
Descriptive data of the sample and comparison of the intervention group and the control group by sociodemographic variables and pretest use of Facebook.
| Sociodemographic variables and pretest Facebook use | Intervention group | Control group | Total sample | Intervention group and control group comparison | |||
| χ2or | df | ||||||
| 0.66 | 1 | .30 | |||||
| Male | 29 (41) | 27 (38) | 56 (79) | —a | — | — | |
| Female | 6 (8) | 9 (13) | 15 (21) | — | — | — | |
| 0.34 | 1 | .37 | |||||
| Indigenous | 17 (24) | 15 (21) | 32 (45) | — | — | — | |
| Foreign | 18 (25) | 21 (30) | 39 (55) | — | — | — | |
| Registered email, n (%) | 24 (34) | 25 (35) | 49 (69) | 0.006 | 1 | .57 | |
| Age, mean (SD) | 38.94 (9.11) | 39.14 (8.74) | 39.04 (8.86) | −0.093 | 69 | .93 | |
| Hours per week using Facebook, mean (SD) | 1.20 (1.35) | 1.19 (1.31) | 1.20 (1.32) | 0.018 | 69 | .99 | |
| 26 (37) | 22 (31) | 48 (68) | 1.43 | 1 | .58 | ||
| To contact family | 14 (20) | 15 (21) | 29 (41) | 0.84 | 1 | .42 | |
| To contact friends | 9 (13) | 5 (7) | 14 (20) | 0.73 | 1 | .39 | |
| For leisure | 3 (4) | 2 (3) | 5 (7) | 1.23 | 1 | .51 | |
aNot applicable.
Descriptive statistics and results of mixed repeated measurements analysis of variance.
| Analyzed constructs | Intervention, | Control, | Phase comparison, | ||||||
| Time | Program | Time×Program | |||||||
| 18.61 (0.21/1) | <.001 | 33.14 (0.32/1) | <.001 | 32.81 (0.32/1) | <.001 | ||||
| T1b | 66.74 (4.05) | 71.69 (3.99) | —c | — | — | — | — | — | |
| T2d | 94.66 (3.64) | 68.33 (3.58) | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| T3e | 109.23 (4.37) | 62.83 (4.31) | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| T4f | 107.63 (4.30) | 69.97 (4.24) | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 4.22 (0.03/.31) | .006 | 10.15 (0.10/.77) | <.001 | 7.47 (0.13/1) | <.001 | ||||
| T1 | 20.37 (0.87) | 21.86 (0.86) | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| T2 | 24.49 (0.97) | 19.91 (0.95) | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| T3 | 23.11 (0.90) | 17.83 (0.88) | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| T4 | 20.94 (0.87) | 18.86 (0.86) | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 2.28 (0.03/.57) | .08 | 26.26 (0.98/.99) | <.001 | 10.03 (0.13/1) | <.001 | ||||
| T1 | 53.03 (1.96) | 55.36 (1.93) | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| T2 | 63.69 (2.00) | 51.61 (1.98) | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| T3 | 65.80 (1.80) | 50.44 (1.78) | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| T4 | 63.43 (2.10) | 52.39 (2.07) | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 5.96 (0.08/.95) | .001 | 7.01 (0.09/.75) | <.001 | 7.23 (0.09/.98) | <.001 | ||||
| T1 | 10.63 (0.56) | 11.14 (0.55) | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| T2 | 13.86 (0.65) | 11.28 (0.64) | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| T3 | 14.31 (0.58) | 10.67 (0.57) | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| T4 | 13.99 (0.61) | 12.83 (0.60) | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
aObserved potency.
bT1: Observations performed pretest-posttest at the beginning of the training.
cNot applicable.
dT2: Observations performed at the end of training.
eT3: Observations performed 1 month later.
fT4: Observations performed 3 months later.
Figure 1Evolution of the scores in social skills in the intervention and control groups and the difference of averages at each level of analysis. IG: intervention group; CG: control group.
Comparison of paired samples (t) of the different observations.
| Analyzed constructs | Intervention group | Control group | |||||
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||||||
| T1a-T2b | −27.91 (28.97) | −5.70 | <.001 | 2.27 (20.00) | .690 | .49 | |
| T2-T3c | −14.57 (20.91) | −4.12 | <.001 | 3.97 (22.51) | 1.10 | .28 | |
| T3-T4d | 1.6 (14.94) | .634 | .53 | −5.49 (18.53) | −1.80 | .08 | |
| T1-T3 | −42.49 (28.55) | −8.80 | <.001 | 6.24 (28.45) | 1.33 | .19 | |
| T1-T4 | −40.89 (27.13) | −8.92 | <.001 | .76 (28.71) | .160 | .87 | |
| T1-T2 | −4.11 (6.37) | −3.82 | .001 | 1.81 (5.98) | 1.84 | .07 | |
| T2-T3 | 1.37 (4.69) | 1.73 | .09 | 2.05 (4.88) | 2.56 | .02 | |
| T3-T4 | 2.17 (6.62) | 1.94 | .06 | −.973 (5.83) | .317 | .32 | |
| T1-T3 | −2.74 (5.85) | −2.77 | .009 | 3.86 (5.46) | 4.30 | <.001 | |
| T1-T4 | −.571 (3.89) | −.867 | .39 | 2.89 (3.57) | 4.92 | <.001 | |
| T1-T2 | −10.66 (14.27) | −4.42 | <.001 | 3.68 (6.81) | 3.28 | .002 | |
| T2-T3 | −2.11 (12.48) | −1.00 | .32 | 1.57 (11.69) | .816 | .42 | |
| T3-T4 | 2.37 (16.03) | .875 | .38 | −2.38 (17.12) | −.845 | .41 | |
| T1-T3 | −12.77 (15.56) | −4.86 | <.001 | 5.24 (14.18) | 2.25 | .03 | |
| T1-T4 | −10.40 (14.41) | −4.27 | <.001 | 2.86 (16.33) | 1.07 | .29 | |
| T1-T2 | −3.23 (3.50) | −5.50 | <.001 | −.054 (3.24) | −.101 | .92 | |
| T2-T3 | −.457 (2.47) | −1.10 | .28 | .568 (4.21) | .821 | .41 | |
| T3-T4 | 1.31 (4.50) | 1.73 | .09 | −1.08 (4.64) | −1.24 | .03 | |
| T1-T3 | −3.69 (3.10) | −7.05 | <.001 | .510 (4.83) | .647 | .52 | |
| T1-T4 | −2.37 (4.24) | −3.31 | <.001 | −1.57 (5.67) | −1.68 | .11 | |
aT1: Observations performed pretest-posttest at the beginning of the training.
cT2: Observations performed at the end of training.
dT3: Observations performed 1 month later.
eT4: Observations performed 3 months later.
Figure 2Evolution of the scores in self-esteem in the intervention and control groups and the difference of averages at each level of analysis. IG: intervention group; CG: control group.
Figure 3Evolution of the scores in self-efficacy in the intervention and control groups and the difference of averages at each level of analysis. IG: intervention group; CG: control group.
Figure 4Evolution of the scores in satisfaction with life in the intervention and control groups and the difference of averages at each level of analysis. IG: intervention group; CG: control group.
Multiple linear regression for the dependent variables of social skills, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and satisfaction with life.
| Dependent variables of the model | Values | Collinearity | ||||||||
| B | Estimated error | beta | Tolerance | Variance inflation factor | ||||||
| Age | .154 | .369 | .043 | .416 | .68 | .870 | 1.149 | |||
| Use of Facebook (hrs/wk) | 3.43 | .599 | .613 | 5.72 | <.001 | .796 | 1.256 | |||
| Self-esteem | −1.32 | .675 | –.216 | −1.96 | .06 | .752 | 1.330 | |||
| Self-efficacy | .319 | .248 | .136 | 1.29 | .20 | .825 | 1.212 | |||
| Satisfaction with life | −.882 | .856 | −.100 | −1.03 | .31 | .978 | 1.023 | |||
| Age | .175 | .062 | .297 | 2.81 | .007 | .973 | 1.028 | |||
| Use of Facebook (hrs/wk) | .382 | .122 | .418 | 3.12 | .003 | .609 | 1.642 | |||
| Social skills | −.042 | .022 | −.258 | −1.96 | .06 | .630 | 1.588 | |||
| Self-efficacy | .090 | .043 | .233 | 2.07 | .04 | .858 | 1.166 | |||
| Satisfaction with life | −.041 | .154 | −.029 | −.269 | .79 | .963 | 1.038 | |||
| Age | −.247 | .180 | −.162 | −1.375 | .17 | .893 | 1.120 | |||
| Use of Facebook (hrs/wk) | .371 | .360 | .156 | 1.03 | .31 | .538 | 1.858 | |||
| Social skills | .078 | .061 | .183 | 1.29 | .20 | .610 | 1.639 | |||
| Self-esteem | .688 | .333 | .265 | 2.07 | .04 | .757 | 1.321 | |||
| Satisfaction with life | .096 | .426 | .026 | .225 | .82 | .963 | 1.039 | |||
| Age | .053 | .053 | .131 | 1.01 | .31 | .882 | 1.134 | |||
| Use of Facebook (hrs/wk) | .008 | .106 | .012 | .073 | .94 | .530 | 1.888 | |||
| Social skills | −.018 | .018 | −.161 | −1.03 | .31 | .605 | 1.654 | |||
| Self-esteem | −.027 | .100 | −.039 | −.269 | .79 | .711 | 1.407 | |||
| Self-efficacy | .008 | .036 | .031 | .225 | .82 | .805 | 1.242 | |||