Social Networks and Social Interaction among People with Psychiatric Disabilities-Comparison of Users of Day Centres and Clubhouses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare users of community-based mental health day centres (DCs) and clubhouses in Sweden regarding reported social networks and social interaction and the stability of these over time. A further aim was to investigate social network predictors both cross-sectionally and longitudinally.METHODS: People regularly attending DCs (n=128) or clubhouses (n=57) completed questionnaires about social network and social interaction (social engagement and social functioning), self-esteem and socio-demographics at baseline and a nine-month follow-up. RESULTS: Perceived social engagement and social functioning did not differ between the groups and remained stable over time. Fewer in the DC reported having a close friend but there was no difference regarding having recently (the past week) seen a friend. When naming “someone with whom you can share your innermost thoughts and feelings”, the DC group named more professional contacts, fewer friends and more often “nobody” compared to the clubhouse group. Finally, on both occasions the DC group scored significantly lower on size of the social network compared to the clubhouse users. Self-esteem and having recently seen a friend could predict size of the social network in the cross-sectional perspective. Strong indicators of belonging to the group with a larger social network at follow-up were being a woman, attending a clubhouse programme and having scored high on social network at baseline.CONCLUSION & IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: Having friends and strengthening one’s self-esteem may be essential factors for the social network of people with psychiatric disabilities in a short-term perspective. Visiting clubhouses seems advantageous in a longer-term perspective.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".