↓ Skip to main content

Can mental health interventions change social networks? A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
235 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
Can mental health interventions change social networks? A systematic review
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12888-015-0684-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kimberley Anderson, Neelam Laxhman, Stefan Priebe

Abstract

Social networks of patients with psychosis can provide social support, and improve health and social outcomes, including quality of life. However, patients with psychosis often live rather isolated with very limited social networks. Evidence for interventions targeting symptoms or social skills, are largely unsuccessful at improving social networks indirectly. As an alternative, interventions may directly focus on expanding networks. In this systematic review, we assessed what interventions have previously been tested for this and to what extent they have been effective. A systematic review was conducted of randomised controlled trials, testing psychosocial interventions designed to directly increase the social networks of patients with psychosis. Searches of five online databases (PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Database, MEDLINE, Embase), hand searching of grey literature, and both forward and backward snowballing of key papers were conducted and completed on 12 December 2014. Trial reports were included if they were written in English, the social network size was the primary outcome, participants were ≥ 18 years old and diagnosed with a psychotic disorder. Five studies (n = 631 patients) met the complete inclusion criteria. Studies were from different countries and published since 2008. Four trials had significant positive results, i.e. an observable increase in patients' social network size at the end of the intervention. The interventions included: guided peer support, a volunteer partner scheme, supported engagement in social activity, dog-assisted integrative psychological therapy and psychosocial skills training. Other important elements featured were the presence of a professional, and a focus on friendships and peers outside of services and the immediate family. Despite the small number and heterogeneity of included studies, the results suggest that interventions directly targeting social isolation can be effective and achieve a meaningful increase in patients' networks. Thus, although limited, the existing evidence is encouraging, and the range of interventions used in the reported trials leave various options for future research and further improvements. Future research is needed to test the findings in different settings, identify which components are particularly effective, and determine to what extent the increased networks, over time, impact on patients' symptoms and quality of life.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 235 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Japan 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 230 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 14%
Student > Master 34 14%
Researcher 27 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 11%
Student > Bachelor 21 9%
Other 35 15%
Unknown 58 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 67 29%
Social Sciences 31 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 8%
Environmental Science 4 2%
Other 24 10%
Unknown 66 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 13 May 2022.
All research outputs
#4,490,391
of 25,358,192 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#1,745
of 5,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,188
of 399,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#23
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,358,192 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,429 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
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 399,788 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.