Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Mean size of social networks and their composition

From: Social networks of patients with psychosis: a systematic review

Study description Network size (mean) Network composition (%)a
No. Authors’ name, year Whole network Friendship network Kin Friends Non-kin Other patients MH and other professionals Others social figures
1 Angermeyer and Klusmann, 1987 [55] 11.8 38.9    8 8.5  
2 Becker et al., 1998 [47] 12.8 4.3 30 33     32b
3 Cohen and Sokolovsky, 1978 [31] 13.3       
4 Cohen and Kochanowicz, 1989 [52] 7.7 46.6   32.5   20.9  
5 Cohen et al., 1996 [64] 10       
6 Dozier et al., 1987 [65] 16.3       
7 Estroff et al., 1994 [48] 11.4 68.7 24.4    6.9  
8 Famiyuwa and Olatokunbo, 1984 [43] 11.6 52      48c
9 Hamilton et al., 1989 [56] 12.9 48.1   52    
10 Harley et al., 2012 [13] 1.6       
11 Hernando et al., 2002 [58] 11.8       
12 Horan et al., 2006 [54] 8.8 64      
13 Kauranen et al., 2000 [50] 18.6 5 65.1 27    0.5 6.5d
14 Lipton et al., 1981 [45] 10.9 4.7 48.6 42.6    9.2  
15 Meeks and Hammond, 2001 [57] 18.7 53   35   10  
16 Pessoa Moreno Macedo et al., 2013 [49] 10.1 68.6 15.7 13.4    2.3
17 Pernice-Duca, 2008 [44] 4.6 1 34.5 21.6   11.6 32.3  
18 Sawicka et al., 2013 [46] 6.0       
19 Seidmann et al., 1987 [53] 44.9       
20 Sibitz et al., 2010 [59] 4.6       
21 Thorup et al., 2007 [51] 3.6       
22 Tolsdorf, 1976 [66] 29.8 61.1      
23 Van Humbeeck et al., 2000, Belgium [67] 11.6       
  1. aFor some studies, we do not have information on all the types of contacts and the percentages do not add up to 100 %. We reported them in an effort to provide as much information as possible
  2. bOther contacts: nonfriends such as acquaintances, shopkeepers, health or social or other service staff
  3. c,dCo-workers