Social Support. (8.3): Includes periodic telephone contact, visiting or other social and reassurance services to verify that the individual is not in medical, psychological, or social crisis, or to offset isolation; expenses for activities and supplies required for client participation in rehabilitation programs; therapeutic classes and exercise classes are also provided. Such services shall be provided based on need, as designated in the client’s plan of care. The MSSP has found that isolation and lack of social interaction can seriously impact some clients’ capacity to remain independent. Lack of motivation or incentive or the lack of any meaningful relationships can contribute to diminishing functional capacity and premature institutionalization. These services are often provided by volunteers or through Title III of the Older Americans Act; however, these services may not be available in a particular community and do, infrequently, require purchase. The waiver will be used to purchase friendly visiting only if the service is unavailable in the community or is inadequate as provided under other public or private programs.
Social Support. Contractor(s) must include strategies for helping clients build prosocial protective factors that will enhance the success of family reunification interventions.
Social Support. Social support is a multidimensional construct defined as the quantitative and qualitative aspects of a network of individuals that provide instrumental, emotional, and informational support to another individual (Xxxxx, 1982; Xxxxxxxx, Gidron, Xxxxxxx, & Xxxx-Xxxxxx, 2009). Social support has a positive effect on disease management and well-being (Bloom & Xxxxxxx, 1984; XxXxxxxx, 2004a). Social support plays a central role in alleviating the impact of stress and facilitating coping in the presence of an illness (XxXxxxxx, 2004a). Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxxx (2001) found social support was the most commonly used coping strategy for women with breast cancer. A network of support is shown to influence decisions about treatment and helps validate an individual’s choices (Xxxxx, 1982). When faced with a new diagnosis such as breast cancer, a system of support can reduce the sense of isolation and ease the fear of uncertainties that accompany the diagnosis and treatment sequence (Bloom, 1982). Emotional support is also beneficial in providing assurance and adjustment to the cancer diagnosis as well as to other types of chronic illness. A network of support offers the patient undergoing the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer a means to feel accepted and reduces the feelings of isolation and loneliness and thus buffering the stress impact of the cancer experience (Bloom, 1982). Social network impacts health behavior such as disease management and adherence to medications for chronic illnesses (XxXxxxxx, 2004a). Social support facilitates individuals to seek medical care and those with a larger support system have been found to be diagnosed earlier and have a better prognosis (XxXxxxxx, 2004a). Social support is instrumental to helping individuals adhere to treatment regimens; for example, a meta-analysis of 122 studies found practical support to bear the highest correlation with adherence. The risk for non-adherence was almost twice as high among patient who did not receive practical support as among those who did (XxXxxxxx, 2004b). In another example, the odds of adherence were almost twice as high (OR= 1.38) in adults who lived with others than in adults that lived alone. The results from XxXxxxxx’x meta- analysis demonstrate the compelling link between social support and adherence, yet a majority of these links were drawn from the well-developed HIV, anti-hypertensive, and diabetes adherence literature (2004a). There is a gap in the literature that formally ...
Social Support. If social support increased with one unit, likelihood of preferring being supported by a coach individually decreased with 30.1% (χ2(1) = 20.938, p < .001), while the likelihood of preferring being supported by friends and family increased with 39.3% (χ2(1) = 9.423, p = .002). We found no significant relationships between social support and being supported by a coach in a group, by a coach via an app or internet, working independently via an app or internet, having contact with CVD patients via an app or internet, or being self-supportive, without a coach, app/internet or family/friends. Overall predictive model including all demographic variables To check the relative importance of the predictors, we conducted multivariate logistic regressions with all demographic variables included. These analyses showed that all demographic variables were only significantly predictive for the preference of being self-supportive (χ2(7) = 25.476, p = .001), supported by a coach individually (χ2(7) = 45.185, p < .001), by a coach via an app or internet (χ2(7) = 31.665, p < .001), and by friends and family (χ2(7) = 14.813, p = .038). Men (p = .005), with a higher age (p = .017) and a middle income (compared to a low income; p = .037) were most likely to be self-supportive. This is in line with the univariate analyses, only with the addition of a middle income. Young- er patients (p < .001) with a lower level of social support (p < .001) were most likely to prefer support by a coach individually. Patients with a higher level of social support (p = .014) were most likely to prefer support by family and friends. Women (p = .001) with a younger age (p = .010) were most likely to prefer support by a coach via an app or internet. These results are all in line with the univari- ate analyses. All results of the multivariate logistic regressions can be found in Appendix 1. Chapter 3 Table 2. Univariate logistic regression and Chi square cross tabulation analyses of demographic variable predictors on lifestyle support preferences. Gender Age Education Income Social support Male Female Low Middle High Low Middle High (N=429) (N=230) (N=134) (N=196) (N=327) (N=148) (N=278) (N=233) Self- 136 43 χ2(1) = Exp(B) χ2(1) = 39 54 86 χ2(2) = 42 67 70 χ2(2) = Exp(B) χ2(1) = supportive (31.7%) (18.7%) 12.802, = 1.029 11.468, (29.1%) (27.6%) (26.3%) .390, p = (28.4%) (24.1%) (30.0%) 2.405, = 1.165 3.625, p < p= .823 p = p = .057 .001** .001** .300 Coach in 85 60 χ2(1) = Exp(B) χ2(1) = 20 46 78 χ2(...
Social Support. Many communities discussed the role of social support in the adoption of household water treatment behavior. This theme was talked about from both a positive perspective in the case of neighbors sharing filtered water with those that did not have filters in the North program regions, as well as from a negative perspective where non-users called people who used the product names. Positive social support allowed people to overcome barriers such as difficulties adjusting to water treatment and the bad taste associated with chlorine-based treatment products: PM-in my neighborhood there are two people that have the same problem. When they drink it, it gave them the same problem. I tried to reason with them. I said to them, when that happens, it is because it is cleaning up, you have to continue to drink it… In the third week they did it and when I passed by them after that in the neighborhood and I asked them, ‘how does it make you feel ?’and they said, ‘I
Social Support. Definition Social support is a complex, multidimensional concept that involves social interactions between recipients and providers (44). Broadly defined, social support is a voluntary well-intentioned act from one individual, the provider, that is given to another individual, the recipient, and elicits an immediate or delayed positive response in the recipient (45, 46). Using this general definition, there is flexibility in what is and who gives social support, making it difficult to define in detail and measure across interactions. Social support can be given by a family member, husband or partner, friends, and associates. Furthermore, there are different classifications: emotional, including expressions of empathy, care, and love; informational, where advice and guidance are given during a time of stress; instrumental, consisting of practical and tangible help in terms of financial aid or assistance with tasks; and appraisal, with information that is useful for and promotes self-evaluation (47, 48). Each of these four attributes is helpful and protective to the recipient of the support. As opposed to the simplified definitions found in the literature, major theoretical definitions of social support were examined by Xxxxxx in 1997. These definitions could be placed in five categories: 1) Type of support provided, 2) Recipients’ perception of support, 3) Intentions or behaviors of the provider, 4) Reciprocal support, and 5) Social networks (45). Each of these categories get at the complexity and specificity of social support.
Social Support. (8.3): Includes periodic telephone contact, visiting, or other social and reassurance services to verify that the individual is not in medical, psychological, or social crisis, or to offset isolation; expenses for activities and supplies required for Waiver Participant participation in rehabilitation programs; therapeutic classes and exercise classes are also provided. Such services shall be provided based on need, as designated in the Waiver Participant’s plan of care. The MSSP has found that isolation and lack of social interaction can seriously impact some Waiver Participants’ capacity to remain independent. Lack of motivation or incentive or the lack of any meaningful relationships can contribute to diminishing functional capacity and premature institutionalization. These services are often provided by volunteers or through Title III of the Older Americans Act; however, these services may not be available in a particular community and do, infrequently, require purchase. The waiver will be used to purchase friendly visiting only if the service is unavailable in the community or is inadequate as provided under other public or private programs.
Social Support. As part of the Weight Management Support Inventory (WMSI), overall frequency of socially supportive behaviors and overall helpfulness of socially supportive behaviors were individually assessed, as reported in Table 2. Frequency and helpfulness were also assessed as sub-scores in the four types of socially supportive behaviors: emotional, instrumental, informational, and appraisal, as described respectively in Table 3 and Table 4. All WMSI measures are reported on a scale of 1-5, with higher scores reflecting higher frequency or helpfulness or socially supportive behaviors.
Social Support. Support given to people to actively engage in their local community, community asset building, to make friends and sustain relationships. This support is more frequently given away from home.
Social Support. The 7-item social support scale was specifically developed for the original study. It measures students perceived social support following an incident of SH as victims or perpetrators. This 5-point Likert scale (1. Strongly disagree, 2. Disagree, 3. Agree, 4. Strongly agree, 5. Not applicable ‘N/A’) include questions that examine different levels of social support systems for students such as family, tribe, and friends. (Cronbach’s alpha= 0.76). To understand potential influences of social support sources on bystander intentions, study team decided to investigate social support correlation with the outcomes of interest by support type (familial, friends, tribal) as dichotomous variables, except for tribal, where due to the high answer rates of ‘N/A’, this option was not recoded as missing. The three items used are: “If I experienced sexual harassment on campus, I could rely on my family for help”, “If I experienced sexual harassment on campus, I could rely on my friends for help”, and “If I experienced sexual harassment on campus, I could rely on members of my tribe for help.” Wasta Wasta in Arabic translates to connection, and in the context of this study it means having an important person who could help a student evade a serious situation at the university. The 10-point scale was devised for the original study with 10 being the highest and 1 being the lowest connectedness rating as perceived by the student.
