CHAPTER 5: RESULTS
5.4 SOCIAL CAPITAL
5.4.3 Associations between social capital and mental wellbeing
is of note that there was no link shown between involvement in activities inside the residence and mental wellbeing. Yet there was a significant difference in the mental wellbeing of respondents who were involved in activities outside of the residence (18.8 sd 4.6) and those who were not (16.1 sd 6.2) (U = 2.7, p=.008).
Self-efficacy: Self-efficacy underpins social and network dynamics. The average score for self-efficacy of the respondents was 7.0 (sd 1.7) out of a possible 10 (range 2 to 10). Self-efficacy was measured by the ability to have a say with family/friends on important issues (50, 66.7%) and the ability to have a say in the residence (37, 49.3%). There was no statistical difference in the demographic variables (age groups, gender, race, home language, and marital status or education level) and self-efficacy and specifically the ability to have a say with family or friends in important matters. However, there were significant differences in the mental wellbeing (WHO-5 score) between those who felt that they had a say in the residence (19.2 sd 5.4), did not have a say (16.1 sd, 5.3) and those who were not sure (15.1 sd, 6.9) that they have a say in matters of importance in the residence (K=13.6, p=.008).
children and grandchildren, with a closeness decreasing from 2.9 (sd 1.3) to 1.7 (sd 1.6) (U=3.2, p=.002) and from 2.4 (sd 1.4) to 1.4 (sd 1.5) (U=3.0, p=.004) respectively.
Table 19: Associations between network structure and mental wellbeing
Item Mentally well
(WHO-5)
Mentally unwell (WHO-5)
Mann- Whitney Test (U)
p-value
Network size 6.3 sd 1.4 5.5 sd 1.7 U= 2.1 p=.039
Primary network size 2.8 sd 0.8 1.9 sd 1.0 U= 3.8 p=.<.001*
Network volume 459.6 sd 342 348.1 sd 328.2 U=1.9 p=.059
Confiding in primary
network 2.9 sd 1.5 1.9 sd 1.8 U=2.5 p=.013*
Average closeness to
primary network members 1.9 sd 0.8 1.2 sd 0.9 U=3.2 p=<.002*
Differences in Mental Wellbeing (measured using any negative category) were tested using non-parametric Mann Whitney U test. *p-value of significance set at <.05
Network volume was approaching significance but did not quite reach it (See Table 19: Association between network structure and mental wellbeing), though there were significant differences for volume of contact with children and grandchildren and mental wellbeing with volumes of contact in mentally well respondents being significantly higher (97.0 sd 126.6 vs 55.1 sd 103.0, U=2.6, p=.010 and 31.1 sd 83.4 vs 14.9 sd 30.8, U=3.0, p=.003 respectively).
Being mentally well was associated with higher ratings of confidence in confiding with primary network (2.9 vs 1.9. U=2.4, p=.013) with ratings of 2.3 (sd 1.1) vs 1.5 (sd 1.3) (U=2.6, p=.011) for children and ratings of 1.5 (sd 1.1) to 0.9 (sd 1.1)(U=2.2, p=.030) respectively. An interesting finding is the increased level of confidence to confide in a doctor in people with good mental wellbeing with ratings of confidence of 1.9(sd 1.1) versus 1.3(sd 0.9) when mentally well as opposed to unwell (U=2.3, p=.024). Details of the individual network members are provided in Table 20:
Associations between any negative category of mental wellbeing (WHO-5) and frequency of contact, closeness and confidante in individual members of social networks.
Table 20: Associations between any negative category of mental wellbeing (WHO-5) and frequency of contact, closeness and confidante in individual members of social networks
Frequency of Contact Closeness to network Likelihood for Confidante Network
member Well being
Not well
Test (U)
p- value
Well being
Not well
Test (U)
p- value
Well being
Not well
Test (U)
p- value Spouse 24.0
sd 85.4 9.9
sd 60.0 1.3 .186 0.39 sd 1.2
0.1
sd 0.7 1.3 .182 0.3 sd 0.8
0.1
sd 0.5 1.3 .182 Child 97.0
sd 126.6
55.1
sd 103.0 2.6 .010* 2.9 sd 1.3
1.7
sd 1.6 3.2 .002* 2.3 sd 1.1
1.5
sd 1.3 2.6 .011*
Grandchi ld
31.1 sd 83.4
14.9
sd 30.8 3.0 .003* 2.4 sd 1.4
1.4
sd 1.5 2.9 .004* 1.5 sd 1.1
0.9
sd 1.1 2.2 .030*
Other relative
60.6 sd 112.0
35.7
sd 67.5 0.8 .420 2.2 sd 1.4
1.9
sd 1.3 1.3 .179 1.5 sd 1.0
1.8
sd 1.2 1.0 .306 Friend 127.9
sd 151.3
114.1
sd 134 0.1 .944 2.5 sd 1.1
2.4
sd 1.1 0.3 .74 2.0 sd 1.0
1.9
sd 0.9 0.6 .556 Nurse 27.4
sd 85.2
31.4
sd 88.6 0.4 .714 0.9 sd 1.1
0.7
sd 0.9 0.7 .495 0.8 sd 0.9
0.8
sd 0.9 0.2 .877 Doctor 7.0
sd 11.6
16.9
sd 60.0 0.2 .857 1.5 sd 1.1
1.6
sd 1.0 0.5 .594 1.3 sd 0.9
1.9
sd 1.1 2.3 .024*
Commun ity group
74.8 sd 124.2
28.8
sd 68.5 1.3 .208 1.3 sd 1.5
1.0
sd 1.3 0.9 .342 0.8 sd 1.1
0.8
sd 1.1 0.1 .925 Religious
leader
33.8 sd 47.7
41.4
sd 68.5 1.1 .266 1.6 sd 1.3
1.7
d 1.2 0.3 .802 1.1 sd 1.0
1.5
sd 1.2 1.3 .197 Differences in Mental Wellbeing (measured using any negative category) were tested using non-parametric Mann Whitney U test.; *p-value of significance set at <.05. Mental wellbeing is reflected as “wellbeing” and poor sense of mental wellbeing is reflected as “not well”.
In determining the level of contribution of each of these social capital variables to mental wellbeing, a logistic regression was conducted with the significant independent variables of primary network size, network volume, confiding in primary network, closeness and total social support inserted into a logistic regression model with mental health wellbeing defined as no negative ratings.
The full model containing all predictors was statistically significant, x2 (5, N=75) = 35.7, p<.001, indicating that the model was able to distinguish between respondents who reported and did not report negative symptoms in terms of mental wellbeing.
The model as a whole explained between 36.9% (Cox and Snell R square) and 50.5% (Nagelkerke R squared) of the variance in mental well-being reporting, and correctly classified 80% of cases.
Three of the independent variables made a unique statistically significant contribution to the model (primary network size [OR 0.2, p=.004], social support to get practical help [OR=0.5, p=.026], and participation in activities outside the
residence [OR=8.9, p=.013]). To have a confidante in the primary network approached significance (OR=1.9, p=.094) but may be confounded with primary network size.
The strongest predictor for reporting no negative symptom was the ability to participate in activities outside the residence recording an odds ratio (OR) of 9. This indicated that respondents who participated in activities outside the residence were over nine times more likely to report no negative ratings for wellbeing, controlling for all other factors in the model. Having social support with practical help and having primary networks available were protective factors.