Skip to main content

Table 3 Description of alters in the ego’s social support network, by perceived support

From: The structure of social support: a multilevel analysis of the personal networks of people with severe mental disorders

  

Importance of support

 

Total

Perceived support, level 1 (highest)

Perceived support, level 2

Perceived support, level 3

Perceived support, level 4 (lowest)

F Value / Khi-2

Number of alters: % (no.)

100 (4602)

50.7 (2326)

31.9 (1464)

13.0 (596)

4.4 (200)

  

Alter characteristics

       

Alters from mental health service providers: % (no.)

43.7 (2013)

50.7

34.0

12.1

3.2

182.1

***

Alters from general health service providers: % (no.)

7.8 (359)

35.0

39.5

17.6

7.8

  

Alters from social service providers and justice system: % (no.)

8.2 (379)

38.5

30.2

21.5

9.8

  

Relatives and friends: % (no.)

38.1 (1754)

57.9

27.9

10.3

3.8

  

Alters from generic non-health service providers: % (no.)

2.1(97)

26.8

39.2

30.9

3.1

  

Alter structural position in ego network

       

Alter degree: mean no. (std)

2.6 (3.2)

3.1

2.1

1.6

1.1

52.5

***

Alter betweenness: mean no. (std)

1.1 (5.2)

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.4

8.0

***

Relationship within same group: mean % (std)

63.9 (46.0)

68.4

65.2

51.2

41.7

39.4

***

Characteristics of the network in which alter is embedded

       

Network size: mean no. (std)

14.3 (6.3)(1)

14.3

14.5

14.7

13.2

3.1

*

Professionals: mean % (std)

61.9 (16.7)(1)

62.5

62.1

60.3

58.3

6.0

***

Types of services providers: mean no. (std)

4.2 (2.1)(1)

4.0

4.3

4.5

4.2

12.0

***

Network density: mean % (std)

20.9 (16.2)(1)

22.3

20.5

17.6

16.4

19.7

***

Network degree centralisation: mean % (std)

22.6 (11.2)(1)

22.8

22.6

22.2

21.8

0.7

 

Network fragmentation: mean % (std)

66.3 (25.3)(1)

65.0

66.1

69.5

72.6

9.3

***

  1. [1] These averages have as denominator the number of alters and not the number of egos. They are different from the averages presented in Table1
  2. *p < 0.05 **P < 0.01
  3. ***P < 0.001
  4. Morpheus Study, Belgium 2014–2015 (N = 4602)