The Relationships Among Different Types of Social Support Accessed by Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury Survivors

Abstract

Aim: This exploratory study examined the relationships among different types of social support accessed by patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). Method: Using a cross-sectional study design, 20 SCI patients of workforce age discharged from the Royal Talbot Rehabilitation Hospital, Melbourne, Australia during 2007 were assessed on a range of demographic, injury and social support variables. Results: Higher quality interactions (i.e., actual social support) were significantly associated with greater social integration (i.e., structural social support) and higher perceived social support. However, community integration and social integration, which measure different aspects of structural social support, were essentially unrelated. Conclusions: Actual social support influences perceived social support and social integration. Theoretically, these results suggest that actual social support influences the two main opposing models that explain the relationship between social support and wellbeing: the stress-buffering model (for perceived social support) and the main-effects model (for structural social support). From a research perspective, the use of well-defined types of social support, and psychometrically sound measures, is critical for assessing the influence of social support on rehabilitation outcomes. To effectively match rehabilitation efforts with SCI survivors' needs, future research should examine which types of social support best predict particular rehabilitation outcomes.

Social Support Pairs Predict Daily Functioning Following Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: An Exploratory Study

“…It may be that SCI survivors have sufficiently adjusted to their disability oneyear post injury to widen their scope and participate in the wider community. This interpretation is supported by the considerably smaller correlation between successful daily functioning and social integration (i.e., with personal and local networks), which are more prominent in the early stages of rehabilitation [4,23] while the smaller (and practically significant) association between actual social support and post-injury daily functioning suggests a lower need for practical support, which may not be as critical for daily functioning one-year post-injury.…”

“…Due to the finding that the two most common forms of structural social support -community integration and social integration -are essentially unrelated [4], they were assessed separately.…”

“…For example, the dyad of perceived social support and social integration (which comprises support from family and close friends) may be more important in the earlier stages of adjustment [4]. Although wide individual and group differences exist (e.g., age-related or injury type), future research could also usefully determine the threshold at which the number of social network ties becomes disadvantageous to rehabilitation outcomes.…”

“…However, these measures would need to focus on a particular welldefined type of social support (e.g., actual or structural) and psychometric properties would need to be rigorously assessed. As social and community integration measure different dimensions of structural social support, different measures would need to be developed for each [4].…”

“…Research has examined three major types of social support -perceived, actual and structural [3][4][5]. The use of well-defined and psychometrically sound measures of social support is critical to identifying the nature and extent of social support's relationship to rehabilitation outcomes [6,7].…”