| Literature DB >> 35627864 |
Xianglian Yu1,2, Xiangtian Kong3, Ziyu Cao1,4,5, Zhijuan Chen1,4,5, Lin Zhang1,4,5, Binbin Yu1,4,5.
Abstract
The influence of social and family factors on adolescent mental health has been widely valued. Considering adolescents' family systems in a broader social context facilitates a better understanding of their mental health, which also has special significance in the post-epidemic era. The purpose of the present study was to explore the relationship between social support and family functioning during adolescence. Students from two middle schools in Fujian province, China, were recruited as participants. Seven hundred and fifty-four participants completed the questionnaire twice in six-month intervals. We constructed a cross-lagged model by using IBM SPSS AMOS 26.0 to test the relationship between these two variables. Social support and family functioning predicted each other in the girls, but not for the boys' sample. The results of this study suggested that the interaction between family and social factors and the possible gender differences should be considered when dealing with adolescents' mental health problems.Entities:
Keywords: adolescent; cross-lagged model; family functioning; social support
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35627864 PMCID: PMC9140348 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19106327
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Participant attributes in the present study.
| Participant Attributes | N (%) | Mean (SD) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 320 (42.4%) | |
| Female | 434 (57.6%) | |
| Age | 15.03 (1.56) | |
| Grade | ||
| 7th | 286 (37.9%) | |
| 8th | 176 (23.3%) | |
| 10th | 127 (16.8%) | |
| 11th | 165 (21.9%) |
Descriptive and correlation analysis.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sex | —— | |||||
| 2. Age | 0.068 | —— | ||||
| 3. T1 Social support | −0.090 * | −0.167 ** | —— | |||
| 4. T1 Family functioning | −0.043 | −0.086 * | 0.389 ** | —— | ||
| 5. T2 Social support | −0.091 * | −0.069 | 0.405 ** | 0.228 ** | —— | |
| 6. T2 Family functioning | −0.039 | −0.169 ** | 0.301 ** | 0.465 ** | 0.367 ** | —— |
| 7. M | 15.03 | 38.7 | 36.44 | 39.58 | 36.37 | |
| 8. SD | 1.56 | 7.37 | 5.3 | 7.32 | 5.01 |
Note. For sex, 1 = boys, 2 = girls. T1 = time 1; T2 = time 2 (approximately 6 months after time 1). * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.
Figure 1Cross-lagged model for social support and family functioning for the total sample. Note: statistically significant standardized path coefficients are shown with solid lines. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2Cross-lagged model for social support and family functioning for girls. Note: statistically significant standardized path coefficients are shown with solid lines. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3Cross-lagged model for social support and family functioning for boys. Note: statistically significant standardized path coefficients are shown with solid lines. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.