| Literature DB >> 32326411 |
Rosario Fernández-Peña1, José Luis Molina2, Oliver Valero3.
Abstract
The worldwide burden of chronic illnesses, constitutes a major public health concern and a serious challenge for health systems. In addition to the strategies of self-management support developed by nursing and health organizations, an individual's personal network represents a major resource of social support in the long-term. Adopting a cross-sectional design based on personal network analysis methods, the main aim of this study is to explore the relationship between satisfaction with the social support received by individuals suffering chronic pain and the structure, composition, and functional content in social support of their personal networks. We collected personal and support network data from 30 people with chronic pain (20 person's contacts (alters) for each individual (ego), 600 relationships in total). Additionally, we examined the level of satisfaction with social support in each of the 600 relationships. Bivariate and multivariate tests were performed to analyze the satisfaction with the social support received. Using cluster analysis, we established a typology of the 600 relationships under study. Results showed that higher satisfaction was associated with a balance between degree centrality and betweenness (i.e., measures of network cohesion and network modularity, respectively). Finally, new lines of research are proposed in order to broaden our understanding of this subject.Entities:
Keywords: chronic disease; chronic pain; patient satisfaction; social support
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32326411 PMCID: PMC7215382 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17082706
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Satisfaction and composition variables of the personal network.
| Variable | Category | Mean (SD) |
|---|---|---|
|
| ≤30 years | 1.36 (0.17) |
| 31–50 years | 1.95 (0.13) | |
| 51–60 years | 1.67 (0.16) | |
| >60 years | 1.69 (0.14) | |
|
| Women | 1.91 (0.12) |
| Men | 1.56 (0.12) | |
|
| Partner | 3.22 (0.26) |
| Parents | 3.03 (0.33) | |
| Brothers | 1.75 (0.18) | |
| Children | 2.77 (0.19) | |
| Other family members | 1.32 (0.13) | |
| Friends | 1.61 (0.14) | |
| Other ties | 1.41 (0.18) | |
|
| Very close | 2.83 (0.13) |
| Quite close | 2.19 (0.12) | |
| Close | 1.50 (0.12) | |
| Not very close | 0.74 (0.13) | |
| Not at all close | 0.21 (0.20) | |
|
| Same locality | 1.89 (0.13) |
| Same province | 1.66 (0.13) | |
| Other province/country | 1.53 (0.18) |
* p-value < 0.05.
Satisfaction and structure variables of the personal network and alters.
| Variable | Range/Category | Mean (SD) |
|---|---|---|
| Density * | <40% | 1.57 (0.15) |
| 41–60% | 1.64 (0.16) | |
| >60% | 2.28 (0.22) | |
| Degree centrality (alter) * | 0–5 | 1.35 (0.14) |
| 6–11 | 1.60 (0.13) | |
| 12–19 | 2.35 (0.15) | |
| Betweeness Centrality (alter) * | 0 | 1.44 (0.13) |
| 0.1–1.2 | 1.69 (0.15) | |
| 1.2–114.3 | 2.12 (0.14) | |
| Components | 1 | 2 (0.16) |
| 2 | 1.54 (0.20) | |
| 3–11 | 1.58 (0.18) | |
| Isolates | 0 | 1.89 (0.14) |
| 1 | 1.63 (0.23) | |
| 2–9 | 1.46 (0.22) |
* p-value < 0.05.
Satisfaction and social support variables.
| Variable | Category | Mean (SE) |
|---|---|---|
| Social support variables in provider relationships ( | ||
| Type * | Emotional | 2.37 (0.07) |
| Emotional and instrumental | 3.18 (0.10) | |
| Emotional, instrumental and informational | 3.62 (0.18) | |
| Other types of support | 2.55 (0.14) | |
| Frequency * | Daily | 3.26 (0.09) |
| Weekly | 2.57 (0.08) | |
| Biweekly | 2.42 (0.12) | |
| Monthly | 1.94 (0.11) | |
| >2 months | 1.83 (0.15) | |
| Transmission channel * | Face-to-face | 2.70 (0.09) |
| By telephone | 2.22 (0.13) | |
| Face-to-face and by telephone | 2.74 (0.10) | |
| Internet/Telephone + internet | 2.16 (0.28) | |
| Variation of support * | Increases | 3.22 (0.18) |
| No variation | 1.47 (0.12) | |
| Decreases | 1.73 (0.19) | |
| Reciprocity * | Yes | 1.97 (0.10) |
| No | 0.99 (0.14) | |
SE = Standard Error.* p-value < 0.05.
Age of ego and relationships according to the three profiles (%).
| Category | Profile 1 | Profile 2 | Profile 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 30–49 years | 38.4 | 31.1 | 19.1 |
| 50–64 years | 35.9 | 37.2 | 37.2 |
| 65 and over | 25.7 | 31.7 | 43.7 |
| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Figure 1Dendrogram of the hierarchical cluster analysis.
Composition variables of the personal network according to the three profiles (%).
| Variable | Category | Profile 1 | Profile 2 | Profile 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age of the alter * | <20 | 2.1 | 7.3 | 15.1 |
| 20–39 | 21.5 | 24.4 | 19.6 | |
| 40–59 | 45.6 | 45.2 | 32.7 | |
| >60 | 30.8 | 23.1 | 32.6 | |
| Sex of the alter * | Male | 45.1 | 41.5 | 57.8 |
| Female | 54.9 | 58.5 | 42.2 | |
| Relationship with ego * | Close family members | 17.3 | 59.8 | 14.1 |
| Family members | 24.9 | 7.9 | 24.1 | |
| Other family member | 4.2 | 9.1 | 17.6 | |
| Friends | 35.9 | 17.1 | 32.2 | |
| Neighbors | 8.4 | 3 | 6.5 | |
| Work and professional colleagues | 9.3 | 3 | 5.5 | |
| Strength of the tie * | Strong tie | 77.2 | 100 | 49.2 |
| Weak tie | 22.8 | 0 | 50.8 | |
| Place of residence of the alter compared to the ego * | Same location | 35 | 58 | 43.2 |
| Same province | 43 | 32.9 | 40.2 | |
| Other province | 17.4 | 8.5 | 12.6 | |
| Other province/country | 4.6 | 0.6 | 4 |
* p-value < 0.05.
Structural variables of the personal network. Profile and global means.
| Variable | Profile 1 | Profile 2 | Profile 3 | Global Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Density | 0.44 | 0.53 | 0.41 | 0.45 |
| Degree Centrality (a) | 7.08 | 12.44 | 7.25 | 8.60 |
| Betweeness Centrality (a) | 2.41 | 8.53 | 2.10 | 3.98 |
| Components | 2.41 | 2.11 | 3.03 | 2.53 |
| Isolates | 0.91 | 0.74 | 1.62 | 1.10 |
(a) Alters’ centrality measures
Social support variables in the three profiles (%).
| Variable | Category | Profile 1 | Profile 2 | Profile 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type * | Emotional | 83.5 | 34.8 | 0 |
| Instrumental | 5.1 | 2.4 | 0 | |
| Informative | 2.1 | 0 | 0 | |
| All three types of support | 0.4 | 12.8 | 0 | |
| Emotional and instrumental | 3.4 | 46.3 | 0 | |
| Emotional and informative | 3.4 | 3.7 | 0 | |
| Instrumental and informative | 0.4 | 0 | 0 | |
| Professional | 1.7 | 0 | 0 | |
| None | 0 | 0 | 100 | |
| Frequency * | Daily | 7.6 | 63.4 | 0.5 |
| Weekly | 39.2 | 31.7 | 0.5 | |
| Biweekly | 17.3 | 3.7 | 0 | |
| Monthly | 23.6 | 0.6 | 0 | |
| Every 2 or 3 months | 6.3 | 0.6 | 0 | |
| Every 3 months or more | 5.9 | 0 | 99 | |
| Channel of transmission * | Face-to-face | 43.5 | 54.3 | 0 |
| By telephone | 24.1 | 3.7 | 0 | |
| Internet | 3 | 0.6 | 0 | |
| Face-to-face and by telephone | 27.8 | 41.5 | 0 | |
| Telephone and internet | 1.7 | 0 | 0 | |
| No support | 0 | 0 | 100 | |
| Variation * | Has not varied | 70.5 | 61 | 92 |
| More support | 13.1 | 31.1 | 0 | |
| Less support | 16.5 | 7.9 | 8 | |
| Reciprocity * | Yes | 78.9 | 93.3 | 59.3 |
* p-value < 0.05.
Figure 2Graph Case 1. Woman (40 years old), living with chronic pain for 14 years.
Figure 3Graph Case 28. Man (66 years old), living with chronic pain for 35 years.
Legend of graphs.
| Node Shape: Sex | Node Size: Satisfaction | Node Colour: Type of Social Support |
|---|---|---|
| Circle: Women | Large: | Red: Emotional |
Descriptive analysis of social support at the ego level.
| Case 01 | Case 28 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction (%) | Very satisfactory | 20 | 0 |
| Quite satisfactory | 35 | 15 | |
| Satisfactory | 20 | 40 | |
| Quite unsatisfactory | 0 | 0 | |
| Very unsatisfactory | 25 | 45 | |
| Structure | Density | 0.605 | 0.137 |
| Degree Centrality (mean) | 11.5 | 2.6 | |
| Betweenness Centrality (mean) | 5.7 | 0.25 | |
| Components | 1 | 11 | |
| Isolates | 0 | 9 | |
| Composition (%) | Sex of the alters | | |
| Strength of the tie | | | |
| Place of residence of alters | | | |
| Reciprocity | | | |
| Social support (%) | Type of support | | |
| Variation of support | | | |
| Frequency of support | | | |
| Transmission channel | | |