Kurt Buhagiar1,2, Stefan Priebe3, Justyna Klingemann4, Antonio Lasalvia5, Pablo Nicaise6, Bettina Soltmann7, Domenico Giacco3,8,9. 1. Unit for Social and Community Psychiatry (World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre for Mental Health Services Development), Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. kurt.buhagiar@nhs.net. 2. Department of Research, Innovation and Medical Education, East London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. kurt.buhagiar@nhs.net. 3. Unit for Social and Community Psychiatry (World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre for Mental Health Services Development), Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. 4. Department of Studies on Alcohol and Drug Dependence, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw, Poland. 5. Section of Psychiatry, Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. 6. Institute of Health and Society (IRSS), Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. 7. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 8. Department of Research, Innovation and Medical Education, East London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 9. Warwick Medical School - Mental Health and Wellbeing, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with severe mental illness often struggle with social relationships, but differences among diagnostic groups are unclear. We assessed and compared objective and subjective social relationship indicators among patients with psychotic, mood and neurotic disorders one year after hospitalisation in five European countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, Poland and United Kingdom). METHODS: The number of social contacts, including family members and friends during the previous week (Social Network Schedule), and satisfaction with the number and quality of friendships (Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life Quality) were assessed by face-to-face interview. Linear regression models were used to analyse associations with diagnostic groups. RESULTS: Participants (n = 2155) reported on average 2.79 ± 2.37 social contacts overall in the previous week, among whom, a mean of 1.65 ± 1.83 (59.2 ± 38.7%) were friends. Satisfaction with friendships was moderate (mean 4.62, SD 1.77). In the univariable model, patients with psychotic disorders reported having less social contact with friends than those with either mood (p < 0.05) or neurotic disorders (p < 0.001), but this difference disappeared when adjusting for socioeconomic and clinical variables (β = - 0.106, 95% CI - 0.273 to 0.061, p = 0.215). Satisfaction with friendships was similar across diagnostic groups in both univariable (β = - 0.066, 95% CI - 0.222 to 0.090, p = 0.408) and multivariable models (β = 0.067, 95% CI - 0.096 to 0.229, p = 0.421). The two indicators showed a weak correlation in the total sample (total social contacts, rs = 0.266; p < 0.001; friends, rs = 0.326, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While objective and subjective social relationship indicators appear to be weakly correlated concepts, there is no variation in either indicator across diagnostic groups when confounders are taken into account among patients with severe mental illness. Interventions specifically targeting social relationships are needed, but they do not necessitate diagnosis-specific adaptations.
BACKGROUND:People with severe mental illness often struggle with social relationships, but differences among diagnostic groups are unclear. We assessed and compared objective and subjective social relationship indicators among patients with psychotic, mood and neurotic disorders one year after hospitalisation in five European countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, Poland and United Kingdom). METHODS: The number of social contacts, including family members and friends during the previous week (Social Network Schedule), and satisfaction with the number and quality of friendships (Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life Quality) were assessed by face-to-face interview. Linear regression models were used to analyse associations with diagnostic groups. RESULTS:Participants (n = 2155) reported on average 2.79 ± 2.37 social contacts overall in the previous week, among whom, a mean of 1.65 ± 1.83 (59.2 ± 38.7%) were friends. Satisfaction with friendships was moderate (mean 4.62, SD 1.77). In the univariable model, patients with psychotic disorders reported having less social contact with friends than those with either mood (p < 0.05) or neurotic disorders (p < 0.001), but this difference disappeared when adjusting for socioeconomic and clinical variables (β = - 0.106, 95% CI - 0.273 to 0.061, p = 0.215). Satisfaction with friendships was similar across diagnostic groups in both univariable (β = - 0.066, 95% CI - 0.222 to 0.090, p = 0.408) and multivariable models (β = 0.067, 95% CI - 0.096 to 0.229, p = 0.421). The two indicators showed a weak correlation in the total sample (total social contacts, rs = 0.266; p < 0.001; friends, rs = 0.326, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While objective and subjective social relationship indicators appear to be weakly correlated concepts, there is no variation in either indicator across diagnostic groups when confounders are taken into account among patients with severe mental illness. Interventions specifically targeting social relationships are needed, but they do not necessitate diagnosis-specific adaptations.
Entities:
Keywords:
Europe; Friends; Quality of life; Social contacts; Social relationships