↓ Skip to main content

Associations between the structural and functional aspects of social relations and poor mental health: a cross-sectional register study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Associations between the structural and functional aspects of social relations and poor mental health: a cross-sectional register study
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4871-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lise Røntved Hansen, Stinna Bibi Pedersen, Charlotte Overgaard, Christian Torp-Pedersen, Line Rosenkilde Ullits

Abstract

Social relations influence mental health through different pathways. To capture the complexity of social relations, it is beneficial to consider both the structural (e.g., reachability of social network and social integration) and functional (e.g., instrumental and emotional support) aspects of the concept. Both aspects are rarely investigated simultaneously. This study aimed to examine the association between the structural and functional aspects of social relations and poor mental health. The study was designed as a cross-sectional register study. We used data on mental health and social relations from 15,839 individuals aged 16-92 years with a mean age of 49.0 years (SD 17.9) who responded to The North Denmark Region Health Survey 2013 among residents in Northern Jutland, Denmark. The 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey measured mental health; a cut-off point of 44.5 was used to dichotomize participants into poor and good mental health. The categorization of social relations was inspired by Berkman et al.'s conceptual model of social relations and health. The analyses were performed with survey logistic regression. We found that 21.6% (n = 3422) of participants reported poor mental health, and 59% (n = 2020) of these were women. Being in contact with family and friends less than once a month statistically significantly increased the risk for poor mental health (Family OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.51-2.10 and Friends OR = 2.65, 95% CI = 2.30-3.06). The individuals who were not in contact with their network as often as they liked had a significantly higher risk for poor mental health (OR = 2.40, 95% CI = 2.20-2.62). Lack of instrumental support was associated with a higher risk for poor mental health (OR = 2.81, 95% CI = 2.26-3.48). We found an interaction between age and emotional support; the youngest population had the highest risk for poor mental health when they did not have access to emotional support (Young OR = 5.26, 95% CI = 3.91-7.09; Adult OR = 3.69, 95% CI = 3.17-4.30; and Elderly OR = 2.73, 95% CI = 2.23-3.34). Both structural and functional aspects of social relations were associated with poor mental health in our study. Rarely being in contact with friends and a lack of network reachability were associated with poor mental health. Likewise, low levels of emotional and instrumental support were associated with poor mental health.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 23 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 13%
Social Sciences 10 13%
Psychology 7 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 29 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 November 2017.
All research outputs
#17,443,636
of 25,591,967 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#13,519
of 17,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,558
of 341,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#136
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,591,967 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,321 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.