Social network, recovery attitudes and internal stigma among those with serious mental illness

Background: Schizophrenia is a chronic mental illness affecting the social and occupational lives of the sufferers and posing a considerable burden on the patients and their families. Furthermore, negative societal reactions and the internalization of these attitudes exacerbate the difficulties encountered. This study examines the perspectives of Turkish people with schizophrenia on how they view the impact of the illness on their lives, the societal reactions and attitudes to schizophrenia and whether they agree with these reactions. Methods: Twenty-three adult participants, all members of two schizophrenia associations in Ankara, capital of Turkey, were recruited. Semistructured interviews were used to find out their perspectives on how the illness affected their lives, how the society reacts to them and their views on these reactions. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematic analysis was used to capture the general and the subthemes. Results: The findings suggest that causal attributions for the illness, the impact of illness on various life domains, challenges of living with the illness and finally stigmatization are general categories that capture the perspectives of the participants. Conclusion: People diagnosed with schizophrenia experience the impacts and burdens of their illness in various domains of their lives and negative societal reactions heighten these burdens. It seems important to consider the challenges faced by people with schizophrenia in living with their illness and the impacts of negative societal behaviors and attitudes in offering psychosocial interventions programs for supporting this group. Furthermore, combating negative societal attitudes also seems to be necessary.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Living with schizophrenia: Perspectives of Turkish people with schizophrenia from two Patient Associations on how the illness affects their lives

Karancı

Aras

Kumpasoğlu

et al. 2019

“…So far, most research has assessed the availability of these resources for psychiatric services users according to the size and composition of social networks, on the assumption that it is beneficial to have more social contacts (Beels et al, 1984; Gayer-Anderson & Morgan, 2013). Regarding the size of a network, a larger social network has been associated with fewer negative symptoms (Degnan et al, 2018; Kawachi & Berkman, 2001; Santini et al, 2015), with a reduction in the number and duration of hospitalisations (Albert et al, 1998; Holmes-Eber & Riger, 1990; Lipton et al, 1981), and with better recovery attitudes and less internalised stigma (Cullen et al, 2017). Regarding the composition of a network, the presence of intimate relationships has been shown to have a positive effect on support (Fiori et al, 2006; N.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The personal social network of psychiatric service users

Wyngaerden

Tempels

Feys³

et al. 2020

Background: For psychiatric service users, the personal social network offers resources such as behavioural guidance, social support, and coherence of care delivery. So far, most research on the subject has assessed the availability of these resources using size and composition measures. However, the availability of network resources also depends on the cohesion of the relationships between network members, a topic that is rarely addressed in the literature. Aims: In this article, we aim to describe the cohesion of psychiatric service users’ networks. Method: We carried out a personal network survey and collected data on the social networks of 380 service users recruited in outpatient and inpatient services in Belgium. We used an ego-network mapping technique. The data were analysed using several structural metrics describing size, composition, and cohesion. We carried out analysis of variance (ANOVA) in relation to residential status, level of education, psychiatric history, and psychosocial functioning and analysed three cohesion indicators (density, fragmentation, and centralisation) with regression analyses. Results: Personal social networks were small and not very cohesive. Most were composed of a dense subgroup as well as several isolated network members. The analyses revealed that highly educated psychiatric service users had more fragmented networks, while users living in independent accommodation had less dense networks. Density and fragmentation were not associated with the severity of psychosocial functioning, whereas centralisation was. Conclusions: The low level of cohesion may indicate that service users aim to access multiple and diverse social resources and that better-off service users are more successful at doing so. On the whole, however, these personal social networks were fragile, because they contained a high number of isolated network members. Finally, it could be beneficial for professionals to pay special attention to the central persons within the networks of psychiatric service users.

“…Self-efficacy for interpersonal relationships is essential for building social networks and gaining social support. Previous studies have shown that people with mental illness who have an adequate social network can utilize it as a foundation from which to expand or maintain its size (Chronister et al, 2015; Cullen et al, 2017). Regarding the function of social networks (Heaney & Israel, 2008), it has been shown that individuals with a small social network tend to lack access to resources of social support; thus, the degree of self-efficacy for interpersonal relationships has an effect on the level of community integration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community integration and related factors among people with mental illness in Japan: Multiple regression analysis stratified by social isolation level

Shioda

Yamauchi

2020

Backgroud and Aim: Community integration is an essential for people with mental illness that affects their health and quality of life. The objective of this study is to find the factors useful in improving community integration of people with mental illness. Methods: The study method was self-reporting questionnaires for people with mental illness living in the community. The decision tree analysis revealed that people with mental illness into high or low social isolation level strata. Multiple regression analyses stratified by using two social isolation levels were conducted. Results: Common factors among the strata were living environment of formal care accessibility and daily life activity. Specific factors for social isolation low-level stratum were self-efficacy for coping with symptoms, self-efficacy for social relationships, healthy lifestyle habits, treatment, exchange daily life information with friends and family members. Specific factors for social isolation high-level stratum were self-efficacy for daily living, self-efficacy for treatment-related behavior and satisfaction with formal care. All specific factors were positively associated with community integration. Conclusions: The findings suggest the devising interventions to enhance community integration by social isolation level among people with mental illness.