Social Support Clause Examples

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. Social interaction and support have been shown to provide many benefits to the overall health and well-being of young and older adults. Social interaction and support drawn from a variety of sources (e.g., family, friends, community) have been associated with better outlook and better emotional health, especially among elderly with pre-existing life stress such as cancer and other chronic disease. Studies have also shown that older adults with adequate social interaction and support are less likely to have negative long-term effects (e.g., poor emotional health, pessimistic attitude, hospitalization, poor survival) of life stressors. Importantly, lack of social interaction and support is a potentially modifiable risk factor in older adults. But intervention requires adequate assessment of the social situation. Because of its potential for attenuating effects of life stressors, intervention, and relative ease of assessment, social support should be measured as part of the comprehensive geriatric assessment. To this end, we propose to use the “Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey (MOS-SS)” metric (Table 19). It is a 19-item, self-administered social support survey developed for patients in the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) [61]. It was originally designed as a self-administered measure of functional social support in community dwelling chronically ill persons. The 19 items cover four domains (emotional/informational support, tangible [also called instrumental] support, positive social interaction, and affection) recommend for both combined and individual use. The questionnaire was carefully developed from previous instruments based on a sound theoretical formulation, has been demonstrated to be psycho-metrically sound, and is considered universally applicable. The items are short, simple, and easy to understand thus easy to administer to chronically ill patients of all ages. To reduce respondent burden, several more recent studies have used an eight-item modified Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey (mMOS-SS) [62] of the MOS-SS. The mMOS-SS has two subscales covering two domains (emotional and instrumental [tangible] social support) composed of four items each designed to maintain the theoretical structure of the MOS-SS and identify potentially modifiable social support deficits Because of its brevity, the mMOS-SS is a potentially valuable tool for use in geriatric assessment [63-65]. It is important to notice that the target population are ol...

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.”

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. 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 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(2) = 33 66 46 χ2(2) = Exp(B) χ2(1) = a group (19.8%) (26.1%) 3.434, = .982 5.168, (14.9%) (23.5%) (23.9%) 4.820, p (22.3%) (23.7%) (19.7%) 1.191, p = .955 .311, p = p = = .090 = .551 p = .577 .064 .023* Coach 72 67 χ2(1) = Exp(B) χ2(1) = 27 42 69 χ2(2) = 37 55 47 χ2(2) = Exp(B) χ2(1) = individually (16.8%) (29.0%) 13,715, = .960 25.557, (20.1%) (21.4%) (21.1%)...

Social Support. Definition

Social Support. The SAC framework (Lazarus & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1984) describes social support as a resource that can modify the influence of appraisals of caregiving experience and coping ability and potentially modify outcome in terms of carer distress (▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2003). ▇▇▇▇▇ et al. (2003) studied carers of people with psychosis and found that coping was associated with social support and concluded that effective coping in caregivers of people with psychosis may improve with support from confidantes. Social support has also been associated with better health and higher life satisfaction in carers of people with psychosis (▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2011). However, carers’ social networks can be negatively affected by their role and can diminish over time (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1982; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Bayer, & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1984). ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. (2005) found that carer burden was significantly higher among relatives caring for someone with schizophrenia who reported lower support from their social network and professionals. It is possible that carers who experience posttraumatic stress symptoms may be vulnerable to experiencing reduced social networks. Social support has been shown to be negatively correlated with the development and maintenance of PTSD (e.g., ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2000). We know from the cognitive model of PTSD that people with persistent PTSD are likely to avoid social activities (▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇, 2000). The “here and now” quality of intrusions may be interpreted as a sign by the individual that they are unable to relate to other people or that their relationships with others have permanently changed for the worse (▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇, 2000). Consistent with this, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. (2012) found that social support was negatively associated with posttraumatic stress symptoms in mothers of children with type 1 diabetes.

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:

Social Support. Contractor shall include strategies for helping youth build protective factors such as connections with schools, employment, health care, legal services, appropriate family members and other caring adults.