Lambert Zixin Li1, Jason Yucheng Bian2, Senhu Wang3. 1. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 2. University of California At Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA. 3. Department of Sociology, National University of Singapore, AS1#03-22, 11 Arts Link, Singapore, 117573, Singapore. socsw@nus.edu.sg.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although the family burden of mental health problems on patients' close relatives was widely acknowledged, little was known about how mental health problems affected the quality of life of other types of social relationships of patients, through what mechanisms, and under what conditions. The study aims to explore the burden on all types of relationships of mental health patients and explain why and when the burden is unequal across different relationships. METHODS: The association between different types of relationships and the levels of burden was examined with dyadic data of 1178 patient-acquaintance relationships in the United States and random effects multilevel models. Frequency of contacts was tested as a mediator. The severity of mental health problems was tested as a moderator. RESULTS: All types of relationships of patients borne a significant burden. Close relatives including parents, spouses, children, and siblings suffered a greater burden than distant relatives and non-relatives. The unequal burden was partly explained by the frequency of contacts with patients. The burden of close relatives significantly increased when patients' mental health problems were more severe. CONCLUSION: Mental health patients put a burden on their frequent contacts outside core families, especially when their problems were more severe. Public health policies should attend to the quality of life of mental health patients' all types of acquaintances in the wider society.
PURPOSE: Although the family burden of mental health problems on patients' close relatives was widely acknowledged, little was known about how mental health problems affected the quality of life of other types of social relationships of patients, through what mechanisms, and under what conditions. The study aims to explore the burden on all types of relationships of mental health patients and explain why and when the burden is unequal across different relationships. METHODS: The association between different types of relationships and the levels of burden was examined with dyadic data of 1178 patient-acquaintance relationships in the United States and random effects multilevel models. Frequency of contacts was tested as a mediator. The severity of mental health problems was tested as a moderator. RESULTS: All types of relationships of patients borne a significant burden. Close relatives including parents, spouses, children, and siblings suffered a greater burden than distant relatives and non-relatives. The unequal burden was partly explained by the frequency of contacts with patients. The burden of close relatives significantly increased when patients' mental health problems were more severe. CONCLUSION: Mental health patients put a burden on their frequent contacts outside core families, especially when their problems were more severe. Public health policies should attend to the quality of life of mental health patients' all types of acquaintances in the wider society.
Entities:
Keywords:
Caregiver; Family burden; Social networks; Stress process; United states
Authors: Andreas A Argyriou; Panagiotis Karanasios; Amalia A Ifanti; Gregoris Iconomou; Konstantinos Assimakopoulos; Alexandra Makridou; Fotini Giannakopoulou; Nicolaos Makris Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-04-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Gabrielle Alexander; Charlotte-Ellen Bebee; Kelly-Maria Chen; Ross-Michael Des Vignes; Brandon Dixon; Richard Escoffery; Chazine Francis; DeAngelo Francis; Zahra Mendoza; Skyla Montano; Maxine Nelson; Stephon Ramcharan; Siobhan Richards; Maria D Jackson Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-07-24 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Alejandra Caqueo-Urízar; José Gutiérrez-Maldonado; Claudia Miranda-Castillo Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2009-09-11 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Elisabetta Pisanu; Annalisa Di Benedetto; Maria Rita Infurna; Raffaella I Rumiati Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Poly Rani Debnath; Md Saiful Islam; Prodip Kumar Karmakar; Rumpa Sarker; Zu Wei Zhai; Marc N Potenza Journal: Int J Ment Health Addict Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 11.555