Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.

You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content
Download PDF

Prevalence and factors influencing low social support from family, friends, and significant others among people with mental illness attending psychiatric outpatient clinics in Gondar, Ethiopia

BMC Psychiatry volume 25, Article number: 429 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Evidence demonstrates a correlation between high social support and better health outcomes. However, people with mental illness are less likely to receive adequate social support to overcome mental health challenges when compared with the general population. The main objective of this study is to determine the prevalence and associated factors of low perceived social support from family, friends and significant others among people with mental illness attending a psychiatry outpatient clinic in Gondar, Ethiopia.

Methods

Data were collected from 636 participants attending a psychiatry outpatient clinic at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital. Two individuals consented but did not complete the questionnaires from October 2022 to March 2023. A systematic random sampling technique was used to recruit participants. Perceived social support was measured with the Multidimensional Perceived Social Support scale (MPSS-12). Other questions assessed self-esteem, drug adherence, substance use and severity of illness, alongside sociodemographic factors. Variables were coded and entered into SPSS-28 software for further analysis. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted. Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value less than 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

Prevalence of low perceived social support was 12.1% (N = 77). In the final regression analysis, several factors were associated with a greater likelihood of overall low perceived social support. These include living alone (OR = 2.40, CI = 1.24,4.63), having a relapse (OR = 2.13; CI = 1.13,4.02), family not participating in patient care (OR = 4.67; CI = 2.49,8.76), having moderate and severe objective severity (OR = 2.51; CI = 1.41,4.45), having low self-esteem (OR = 2.36; CI = 1.34,4.15) and having poor drug adherence (OR = 1.99; CI = 1.02,3.89).

Conclusions

Over 10% of people with a mental illness attending the outpatient psychiatry clinic reported low perceived social support. The study indicates that efforts to address low social support should focus specifically on patients, including those: living alone, having relapses, having families that do not participate in patient care, having moderate and severe objective severity of illness, having low self-esteem, and having poor drug adherence.

Clinical trial number

Not applicable.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

According to Lin (1979), perceived social support is “support provided to an individual through social relationships to other people, groups, and the community” [1]. Researchers have consistently found positive correlations between social support and psychological well-being [2, 3]. Perceived social support is an essential aspect of human relations vital to the human experience [4]. People who experience low perceived social support from their social network believe they are not receiving enough support, empathy, or encouragement [5]. In times of need, they may feel alone or detached and believe that they cannot depend on other people, resulting in them developing feelings of isolation and further stress [6]. This can contribute to mental health problems or make it more difficult for people to manage existing mental health issues [7, 8].

Social support comprises structural (social engagement frequency and connectivity) and functional (emotional and practical assistance) dimensions [9]. Interpersonal interactions and communication, monetary assistance, love and understanding, concern and care, affection and friendship, respect and acceptance are all examples of social support [10]. Different scholars suggest that the functional dimension of social support is a better indicator of good health than the structural dimension, even though both are essential [11]. The benefits of social support include improved quality of life (QoL) and protection from adverse life outcomes [12, 13]. Social variables significantly impact the recurrence and persistence of the disease, which can play a significant role in establishing and promoting health [14]. As such, focusing on social variables that affect mental health is crucial, and perceived social support is one of those factors [15].

Studies have identified that social support improves the QoL of people with a mental illness [16,17,18,19,20]. An effective social support from family and friends has been found to contribute to better QoL among schizophrenia patients [21], but those patients with poor social support have a poorer QoL [19]. Social support is also essential in assisting people with a mental illness in coping with the challenges of life and disease [22]. Social support has also been associated with satisfaction with services [23], Improved symptoms of illness, recovery, and social functioning [24] and psychological well-being [25, 26]. Evidence from several systematic reviews has also shown associations between social support and mental health more generally [27,28,29,30,31].

It is commonly recognised that people with severe mental illnesses engage in fewer interpersonal relationships, have reduced contact with individuals who are healthy [32] and have lower access to social support. For example, a study in Singapore found lower perceived social support among people with mental illnesses compared to those with no mental illnesses [33]. Additionally, a survey of Taiwanese adults with mental illnesses found that 72% of respondents had poor perceived social support [22]. Another study conducted in Malaysia with people affected by schizophrenia indicated that 72% had poor perceived social support, and support from significant others was at its lowest, followed by friends and family [21].

In Africa, limited studies have been conducted on perceived social support among people with mental illnesses. A study conducted in Egypt among inpatient and outpatient departments of a mental health hospital showed that two-thirds of participants reported low social support [19]. Another study in South Africa found an association between perceived social support and recovery for patients with schizophrenia [34]. In Ethiopia, our search found only one study, which was conducted among schizophrenia patients in a hospital, where social support was assessed, with findings indicating: low perceived social support, medium perceived social support, and high perceived social support to be 21.5%, 58.5%, and 20%, respectively [10]. In general, studies of patients with mental illnesses have revealed that many people do not have adequate social support [35,36,37,38].

Different factors, such as marital status, the onset of the disease, and prior hospitalisation, impact the level of social support for people with mental illnesses [39], the type of mental illness [33], poor drug adherence, hospital admission, level of education [40], substance use [41] have been linked to levels of social support, self-stigma [42] and relapse [43] may also contribute to poor social support, where patients think that people do not want to help them or that they do not deserve support.

Perceived social support from family, friends, and significant others varies depending on several factors, such as the nature of the relationships, the level of emotional closeness, and the type of support provided. Family provides unconditional and long-term support, while friends offer companionship and emotional backing. Significant others, including partners and spouses, contribute emotional intimacy, companionship, and sometimes financial assistance. This high prevalence of low perceived social support is more common from friends and significant others. people with mental illness often report receiving less social support from friends and significant others than from family members. This difference can be attributed to several factors, including misconceptions about mental illness that may cause friends and significant others to distance themselves. Furthermore, those facing mental health challenges often lean more on their families, who typically feel a sense of responsibility that friends and significant others may not share.

However, there is limited evidence of prevalence and associated factors of low perceived social support among people with mental illnesses in African contexts, and the only existing study from Ethiopia focused on prevalence but not the association of low perceived social support. Therefore, the current study aims to fill this research gap by assessing the prevalence and association of low perceived social support during outpatient follow-up among patients with mental illnesses in Ethiopia.

Methods and materials

Study design and procedure

This hospital-based cross-sectional study was conducted from October 2022 to March 2023 among people with mental illnesses at an outpatient psychiatry clinic of the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital in Gondar Town. Gondar town is situated in the Amhara National Regional State, Northwest Ethiopia. The university serves as the catchment area for more than ten million people and is a referral facility for people in Northwest Ethiopia. A total of 2400 patients attended the clinic during the current study period.

The current study was part of a large study that examined the QoL of people with mental illnesses. The sample size for the QoL study was calculated using a single population proportion formula, considering several assumptions. From a previous study conducted in Ethiopia, a 41% prevalence of poor QoL, a 95% confidence, and a 4% margin of error [44]. The following formula was applied: n = (Zα/2)2 * P (1-P)/d2, where n is the minimum sample size needed, Z is a standard normal distribution (Z = 1.96) with a confidence interval of 95% CI and ⍺ = 0.05, d is the absolute precision or tolerable margin of error (4%), and P = estimated proportion is assumed to be 41% (0.41). Then, n= (1.96)2 *(0.41) *(0.59)/ (0.04)2= 580 and 10% nonresponse rates (580 *10/100) = 58, with a 10% non-response rate of 580 + 58 = 638.

A systematic random sampling technique was employed to determine the sample size from a total of 2400 patients, indicating that a sample of 638 patients would be sufficient. After applying the inclusion criteria, which required patients to have been followed up for at least three months and be 18 years or older, 638 patients were included in the study. However, two individuals consented but did not complete the questionnaires, resulting in their exclusion from the analysis.

The study obtained ethical clearance from the Flinders University Human Research Ethics Committee (Project No: 5416), and the permission to conduct the survey in Ethiopia was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Gondar. Before their participation, written informed consent was diligently obtained from all study participants. Participants were fully briefed on the study’s objectives and informed of their freedom to withdraw without repercussions. Furthermore, to safeguard the confidentiality and privacy of the participants, the study employed code numbers instead of personal identification, ensuring that their personal information remained secure and undisclosed. These ethical measures underscore the commitment to the well-being and rights of the study participants and are based on established ethical principles in research.

Participants

All patients over 18 years old who visited the outpatient clinic of the hospital during the study period and had received outpatient care for at least three months for their mental disorder were potential study participants. Patients with acute mental illness who could not communicate because of severe physical or mental illness were excluded. The data were collected using an interviewer-administered standardised questionnaire during a face to face interview at the outpatient psychiatry clinic by nurses. The questionnaire was prepared in English and translated into the local language, Amharic. Five psychiatry nurses and two MSc psychiatry supervisors participated in the data collection.

Measures and operational definitions

Validated measures were used for several variables, with the remaining measured using single item measures.

Perceived social support

The multidimensional scale of perceived social support (MSPSS) was used to assess perceived social support. This tool has been adapted and validated in various settings worldwide, including in African countries such as Malawi and Uganda [45,46,47,48]. A pilot study was conducted to evaluate the tool’s performance, and it demonstrated excellent internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.92. The instrument assesses perceived social support sufficiency through three subscales: family, friends, and significant others [45]. The MSPSS has 12 items (each subscale has 4 items) with 7-point Likert scale response options from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree) [45, 49]. Significant other subscale items 1, 2, 5, & 10, family subscale items 3, 4, 8, & 11, friends subscale items 6, 7, 9, & 12. The values of each item are added up, and mean scores are computed. The mean scores can range from 1 to 7, with one being the lowest and seven being the highest. According to Zimet GD et al., 1988; mean scores ranging from 1 to 3 indicate low perceived social support, scores ranging from greater than 3 to 5 indicate moderate perceived social support, and scores ranging from greater than 5 to 7 indicate high perceived social support [49]. Given the significance of perceived low social support for patients with mental illnesses, we dichotomised social support into low and medium/high for some of the analysis.

Self-Esteem

Self-esteem was measured using the single-item self-esteem scale, which measures overall self-esteem. Participants rate the single item on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not very true of me) to 5 (very true of me). Although shorter than the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, the scale exhibits good convergent and comparable predictive validity [50].

Medication adherence

The medication adherence scale (MARS-5) assesses patients’ standard treatment adherence through five questions and five-level response formats (1 = always, 2 = often, 3 = occasionally, 4 = rarely, and 5 = never). Responses are added for a total score ranging from 5 to 25, with higher scores indicating greater adherence. They use the MARS-5 at a cut-off point greater than or equal to 20 [51, 52].

Substance use

Clients who used alcohol, tobacco, khat and cannabis (for nonmedical purposes) in the last year before data collection were considered current substance users [53].

Severity of illness

The Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale, a subjective and objective measurement, was used to assess the severity of the illness. Responses 1–3 indicate mild, responses four indicate moderate, and responses 5–7 indicate severe on the CGI scale [54].

Suicidal ideation/attempt

Suicidal ideation and attempts were evaluated through “Yes” or “No” questions, with responses coded as 1 for “Yes” and 0 for “No.” These questions were adapted from the World Mental Health Survey Initiative’s module of the WHO’s Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), which has been validated for use in both clinical and community settings in Ethiopia [55].

Family relationships

Family relationships were measured as your relationship with your family—excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor.

Family participation in patient care

refers to instances where family members are actively involved, such as picking up medications during follow-ups, accompanying the patient to appointments, or communicating with healthcare providers about the patient’s care. This was measured using a single question, with a response of Yes/No.

Episode

An episode refers to a period during which a person experiences symptoms of a mental illness. It is often used to describe an acute phase of a disorder, such as a depressive episode, manic episode, or psychotic episode in psychiatric conditions. Eepisodic illness occurs if it happens more than once/year.

Relapse

occurs when a person who has been in recovery or remission experiences a return of symptoms. We assessed with single question have you had a history of illness relapse? Yes/No.

Statistical analyses

Low perceived social support was the dependent variable of this study. The independent variables were sociodemographic characteristics (sex, age, ethnicity, marital status, educational status, religion, job of participant, residence), clinical factors (type of mental illness, age of onset of illness, duration of illness, number of episodes of disease per year, drug side effect, objective severity of illness, number of episodes, hospital admission, waiting time in clinics), family relationships (family not participating in patient care, relationship with family) and substance use factors (alcohol use, tobacco use, khat use, cannabis use, family history of substance use) and other factors (legal issues, self-esteem).

This study followed a systematic approach to data management and analysis. After ensuring the accuracy and consistency of the data, this was meticulously checked, cleaned, coded, and then entered to the statistical software SPSS-28 for data analysis. The primary focus of this research was to assess the prevalence of low perceived social support, which was designated as the dependent variable and numbers of associated factors.

The analysis consisted of several steps. Initially, bivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationships between independent and outcome variables. Variables with p-values less than or equal to 0.2 in the bivariate analysis were selected for further investigation to control for potential confounding effects but to allow for all potentially significant variables to be included the analysis [56]. These selected variables were then included in a multivariate logistic regression analysis.

In addition to logistic regression, descriptive statistics and other relevant analyses were conducted to understand the data comprehensively. To measure the strength of associations between the dependent and independent variables, bivariate analysis utilized adjusted odds ratios with a 95% confidence interval. Finally, we used a p-value of ≤ 0.05 and 95% CI were employed to see statistical significance.

Results

Background findings

A total of 638 patients with mental illness were included as participants two individuals consented but did not complete the questionnaires. The participants had a mean age of 35.5 ± 11.7 years, and slightly over half were female (51%). The mental illness diagnoses among participants included schizophrenia for 43%, depression for 30.2%, bipolar disorder for 7.9%, anxiety disorder for 6.1%, other psychotic disorders for 10.7%, stress/trauma-related disorder for 0.6%, and somatization disorder for 1.1%. Particularly, antipsychotic medications were taken by 47.3% of the participants, while 21.2% took both antipsychotics and antidepressants. Furthermore, 31.3% of all participants had been under treatment for more than five years, and 49.7% reported low self-esteem, while 13.7% exhibited poor drug adherence (Table 1).

Table 1 Sociodemographic clinical and substance use characteristics of people with mental illness in an outpatient clinic, 2023 (n = 636)
Full size table

Prevalence of low perceived social support among people with mental illness in Gondar, Ethiopia

Among the 636 included participants, 77 individuals (12.1%) reported low perceived social support, while 271 (42.6%) reported moderate perceived social support and 288 (45.3%) indicated high levels of social support. Additionally, the breakdown of social support sources shows that a significant portion of people with mental illness experienced low social support from significant others (109 participants, 17.1%), family (54 participants, 8.5%), and friends (121 participants, 19%) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Source of Low perceived social support among people with mental illness in psychiatry outpatient in Gondar, Ethiopia, 2023 (n = 636)

Full size image

Factors associated with low perceived social support

During the final bivariate logistic regression analysis for perceived social support, factors which had a p-value of less than or equal to 0.2 were identified. These were: (i) sociodemographic characteristics (living condition of participants, residence), (ii) clinical factors (duration of illness, type of drug, duration of treatment, relapse, suicidal ideation, suicidal attempt, family history of mental illness, objective severity of illness, subjective severity of illness, adherence), (iii) family relationship factors (relationship with family, family participating in patient care), and, (iv) others factors (legal issues, self-esteem) were fitted to multivariate logistic regression.

In the final model, living alone, having a relapse of illness, family not participating in patient care, moderate and severe objective severity of illness, low self-esteem and poor drug adherence were significantly associated with low perceived social support at p-value ≤ 0.05 and 95% CI (Table 2).

The results indicated that patients with mental illness who lived alone were 2.40 times (AOR = 2.4, 95% CI; 1.24,4.63) more likely to report low social support than patients living with their family.

People with mental illness who had relapsed illness within the last year were 2.13 times more likely (AOR = 2.13, 95% CI;1.13,4.02) to report low social support than patients who did not have relapsed illness.

People with family who did not participate in their care were 4.67 times odds more (AOR = 4.67, 95% CI; 2.49,8.76) likely to report low social support than patient who did have participant family in their care.

People with moderate and severe objective severity of illness were 2.51 times (AOR = 2.51,95% CI;1.41,4.45) more likely to report low social support than people who have mild objective severity of mental illness.

People with low self-esteem were 2.36 (AOR = 2.36, 95% CI;1.34,4.15) more likely to report low social support when compared to patient with high self-esteem.

People with poor drug adherence were almost two times more (AOR = 1.99, 95% CI;1.02,3.89) likely to report poor social support than patients who had good drug adherence.

Table 2 Multivariate Logistic regression on sociodemographic, clinical and substance use related factors on Low perceived social support among people with mental illness in Gondar, Ethiopia, 2023(n = 636)
Full size table

Discussion

Perceived social support from family, friends, and significant others varies depending on several factors, such as the nature of the relationships, the level of emotional closeness, and the type of support provided. Family provides unconditional and long-term support, while friends offer companionship and emotional backing. Significant others, including partners and spouses, contribute emotional intimacy, companionship and at times financial assistance. This high prevalence of low perceived social support more common from friends and significant other. People with mental illness often report receiving less social support from friends and significant others than from family members. This difference can be attributed to several factors, including misconceptions about mental illness that may cause friends and significant others to distance themselves. Furthermore, those facing mental health challenges often lean more on their families, who typically feel a sense of responsibility that friends and significant others may not share. As a result, this dynamic creates a perceived gap in support from non family relationships.

The current study found that 12.1% of participants reported low perceived social support, 42.6% reported moderate perceived social support, 45.3% indicated high levels of perceived social support. These findings are consistent with results from an Ethiopian study and other studies among patients with mental illness [10, 33, 57] that indicate a considerable number of people with low levels of social support.

The current study found that the greatest number of people reported low perceived social support from friends (19%) and significant others (17.1%), with 8.5% of people reporting low perceived social support from family. Goldberg et al. [58], in the USA, looked at social support among patients with mental illnesses and reported similar findings that the most frequent source of support was their families. A study from Sweden among patients who were receiving inpatient treatment and receiving care in the community showed that social support obtained from family members was higher in percentage than support received from non-family members [59]. The reasons why social support from family might be higher than that from friends might be multifactorial. As a result of their common value cultural norms and enduring bonds family members typically have stronger emotional ties. They also frequently have a strong sense of duty to look out for one another particularly in times of illness or need. Family members often also reside close by or are frequently physically present which makes it simpler to provide social support. In many cultures family members are the main persons to turn for assistance more generally [60]. In Ethiopia family bonds are strong and mainly serve as social support instead of a social burden which can be beneficial [61, 62].

However, contrary to what we found, Egyptian psychiatry patients reported the highest levels of social support was from their significant others (who could be any unique person in the patient’s life such as their boyfriend or girlfriend or a caregiver) [19]. Support from a significant other, such as a spouse, is often high for several reasons [63]. This may be because relationships with significant others tend to involve deeper emotional bonds, and they are often in committed relationships, fostering a greater sense of responsibility and care [64]. These factors make significant others a main source of support, often topping the help provided by friends, colleagues, or even family members in some cases. While 17% of participants in the current study reported low social support from significant others, the majority of participants were happy with the support they received from these key people in their lives. We could not identify any comparable studies from Ethiopia that separately examined types of support.

The current study found that several factors were associated with general social support. These included that those living alone were over twice as likely to have low social support when compared with patients residing with family. This is not surprising given that those who live alone are more likely to have less regular contact regarding the structural aspects of social support. A similar study supports this finding that the type of family that one lives in influences perceived social support in Nepal [65] and a study in South Africa with schizophrenia suggests that social support is crucial for the recovery [34]. When living alone, people with mental illnesses may not be able to get support with everyday duties. Patients with mental health problems like depression or anxiety might isolate themselves from others. They may experience heightened feelings of vulnerability, making them reluctant to ask for support from friends or family, due to fear of being stigmatised or burdening them. This low social support for mental illness could result in worsening symptoms and a lower QoL [6, 66], even where relationships with family are strong or they live with them, family members may not be involved in managing their medical care. When families actively participate in their family members’ treatment, their social support system may be enhanced through improved communication, more understanding, and stronger emotional ties.

In this study, patients with frequent relapses were more than twice as likely to report low social support. This finding aligns with the association between relapse and poor social support found among people with mental illness in Amanuel Mental Specialised Hospital, Ethiopia, which found that those with poor support were more than three times likely to relapse the disease than those with excellent social support [43]. A study from Taiwan likewise found a substantial association between the family domain of social support and the remission status of a patient with schizophrenia, and patients on remission showed higher levels of social support [67]. This reduction in social support during mental health relapses can result from various factors. If relapses are chronic, people may feel overwhelmed or unable to provide ongoing support. Family members or close friends offering continuous care may experience burnout, leading to a gradual decrease in the support they provide as they feel incapable of maintaining the same level of support, and individuals themselves may also withdraw so as not to be a burden for others who give support [68,69,70].

It is believed that family participation in patient care can help change the healthcare system as well as contribute to improved quality of care for patients [71]. Patients with families who did not participate in patient care had 4.67 times greater odds of low perceived social support than patients with families who did participate in their care. This is not surprising, as families who do not participate in a person’s care are also less likely to provide broader support. In the context of mental illness, the perception of family support and participation in care may exhibit a bidirectional relationship. When patients perceive strong family support, they are more likely to involve their families in their care, leading to positive outcomes such as improved treatment adherence, reduced symptoms, and enhanced emotional well-being [72]. As families become more actively involved, patients feel even more supported, reinforcing this cycle of care. This bidirectional association illustrates how the patient’s perception of support both shapes and is shaped by family involvement, ultimately enhancing the management of mental health conditions and improving overall QoL [73].

The present study provides additional evidence concerning the severity of illness and perceived social support. Patients with objective severity, moderate and severe, were 2.5 times more likely to have low perceived social support than those with mild severity. This is supported by a study conducted that over 70% of older adults with severe mental illness in the USA did not receive the support they needed [74]. This may be because when the severity of mental illness increases, it can impact social support in several ways. For example, when severity increases, mood swings, paranoia, or delusions can happen, and it can be difficult for people to maintain healthy relationships, which may be an increased burden that lowers social support levels [75]. Additionally, moderate and severe illnesses may cause social withdrawal and a decrease in the ability to maintain relationships, which can lead to isolation and social exclusion. This might also be a result of the stigma associated with severe mental illness [76].

This study found that self-esteem was one of the predictors of low perceived social support, with those with low self-esteem 2.3 times more likely to have low perceived social support than those with high self-esteem. This is similar to other studies where high social support has been associated with high self-esteem, and patients with high self-esteem were found to have high social relationships with others [77]. This may be due to patients with higher self-esteem being more likely to approach others for help or support easily, and high self-esteem makes people feel more competent in social situations. Additionally, they may find it simpler to communicate their needs, feelings, and concerns to others. This open communication can strengthen relationships and raise the likelihood of receiving the proper support from others. Low self-esteem was more likely to report low social support compared to those with high self-esteem due to several interconnected psychological and social factors: Low self-esteem can make it difficult for people to ask for help or express their needs [78]. Low self-esteem can also make people more prone to being sensitive to rejection, and they may be less assertive [79]. This can make it difficult for them to seek out and maintain supportive relationships actively. All these factors combined can create a vicious cycle in which poor self-esteem weakens relationships and intensifies feelings of helplessness and loneliness. In general, there has been very limited research into the reciprocal relationships between self-esteem and social support, which have been studied rarely [80]There is no more available evidence on the association of self-esteem and social support, so this study may be used as a benchmark.

This study also showed that patients with poor drug adherence were two times more likely to have low social support than those with good drug adherence. This finding is parallel with a study done in China on different areas on patients with severe mental illness that shows statistically significant positive associations between poor drug adherence and low social support [81, 82]. Poor drug adherence can lead to social isolation and reduced perceptions of support [83]. While most studies focus on how low perceived social support influences poor drug adherence, some research also suggests that poor drug adherence itself can predict low perceived social support among people with mental illness. Thus, a reciprocal relationship has been reported where poor drug adherence leads to reduced social support, which may further worsen adherence and social functioning [84]. This may be because poor social support undermines adherence by removing the emotional, practical, and psychological benefits that help patients stay engaged with their treatment. Patients with low social support are more likely to struggle with maintaining regular drug adherence.

Strengths and limitations of the study

This study used a standardised tool, the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. While this tool has not been validated in Ethiopia, it has been in other parts of Africa and demonstrated excellent internal consistency in this study. Under supportive supervision, data were collected by psychiatry nurses with experience and training in data collection. this study’s second strength was its adequate sample size. However, due to the cross-sectional nature of the study design, the study is not able to show a temporal relationship, and mental illness can influence how patients perceive the support they receive. There may be a risk of social desirability bias because the survey was a facility-based cross-sectional study, and most of the data in the study were obtained through interviewer-administered questionnaires. The findings may not be generalisable to people with mental illness outside outpatient clinics, nor other outpatient patients in Ethiopia.

Conclusion and recommendations

More than 10% of patients in the outpatient psychiatry clinic had low perceived social support. These findings underscore the importance of understanding and addressing variations in social support within the context of mental health, as it can have significant implications for the well-being and recovery of people with mental illness. To improve health outcomes, people with mental illnesses need to have significant efforts to increase social support for those who receive outpatient care. Particular attention should be given to those with patients living alone, relapse, suicidal ideation, no family participation in care, moderate and severe objective severity of illness, low self-esteem, and poor drug adherence. To address these challenges, educating patients and their support networks, fostering mutual understanding, and establishing structured social support systems capable of sustaining them through follow-up periods is essential.

Data availability

This is part of PhD work, and all data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article.

Abbreviations

AOR:

Adjusted odds ratio

CI:

Confidence interval

COR:

Crude odds ratio

MARS-5:

Medication adherence rate scale

MSPSS:

Multidimensional perceived social support scale

CGI:

Clinical Global Impression

OR:

Odds ratio

SD:

Standard deviation

SPSS-28:

Statistical package for social science

References

  1. Lin N, Ensel WM, Simeone RS, Kuo W. Social support, stressful life events, and illness: A model and an empirical test. J Health Soc Behav. 1979:108–19.

  2. Hussong AM. Perceived peer context and adolescent adjustment. J Res Adolescence. 2000;10(4):391–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Newman BM, Newman PR, Griffen S, O’Connor K, Spas J. The relationship of social support to depressive symptoms during the transition to high school. Adolescence. 2007;42:167.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sarason IG, Levine HM, Basham RB, Sarason BR. Assessing social support: the social support questionnaire. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1983;44(1):127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Eagle DE, Hybels CF, Proeschold-Bell RJ. Perceived social support, received social support, and depression among clergy. J Social Personal Relationships. 2019;36(7):2055–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Thoits PA. Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. J Health Soc Behav. 2011;52(2):145–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Aseltine RH, Gore S, Colten ME. Depression and the social developmental context of adolescence. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1994;67(2):252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Association AP. Manage stress: strengthen your support network. American Psychological Association; 2019.

  9. Charney DS. Psychobiological mechanisms of resilience and vulnerability: implications for successful adaptation to extreme stress. Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161(2):195–216.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mekonnen M, Boru B, Yohannis Z, Abebaw D, Birhanu A. Level of perceived social support and associated factors among people with schizophrenia attending out patient department at Amanuel mental specialized hospital, addis Ababa, Ethiopia 2017. J Psychiatry. 2019;22(1).

  11. Southwick SM, Vythilingam M, Charney DS, THE PSYCHOBIOLOGY OF DEPRESSION. AND RESILIENCE TO STRESS: implications for. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2005;1:255–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ozbay F, Johnson DC, Dimoulas E, Morgan CA, Charney D, Southwick S. Social support and resilience to stress: from neurobiology to clinical practice. Psychiatry (Edgmont). 2007;4(5):35–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Prabhakaran S, Nagarajan P, Varadharajan N, Menon V. Relationship between quality of life and social support among patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: A cross-sectional study. J Psychosocial Rehabilitation Mental Health. 2021;8(2):137–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Harandi TF, Taghinasab MM, Nayeri TD. The correlation of social support with mental health: A meta-analysis. Electron Physician. 2017;9(9):5212.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Harandi TF, Taghinasab MM, Nayeri TD. The correlation of social support with mental health: A meta-analysis. Electron Physician. 2017;9(9):5212–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Cui L, Li H. A survey of City older adults’ social support network and the index of life satisfaction. Psychologicalence. 1997;2:1.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Li J. Social support and quality of life of the elderly in China. Popul Res. 2007;31(3):50–60.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Unalan D, Gocer S, Basturk M, Baydur H, Ozturk A. Coincidence of low social support and high depressive score on quality of life in elderly. Eur Geriatr Med. 2015;6(4):319–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mahmoud AS, Berma AE, Gabal SAAS. Relationship between social support and the quality of life among psychiatric patients. J Psychiatry Psychiatric Disorders. 2017;1(2):57–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wang J, Xue J, Jiang Y, Zhu T, Chen S. Mediating effects of depressive symptoms on social support and quality of life among rural older Chinese. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1).

  21. Munikanan T, Midin M, Daud TIM, Rahim RA, Bakar AKA, Jaafar NRN, et al. Association of social support and quality of life among people with schizophrenia receiving community psychiatric service: A cross-sectional study. Compr Psychiatr. 2017;75:94–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Huang CY, Sousa VD, Tsai CC, Hwang MY. Social support and adaptation of Taiwanese adults with mental illness. J Clin Nurs. 2008;17(13):1795–802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Skar-Fröding R, Clausen HK, Šaltytė Benth J, Ruud T, Slade M, Sverdvik Heiervang K. Relationship between satisfaction with mental health services, personal recovery and quality of life among service users with psychosis: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):439.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Wang J, Mann F, Lloyd-Evans B, Ma R, Johnson S. Associations between loneliness and perceived social support and outcomes of mental health problems: a systematic review. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18(1):1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bøen H, Dalgard OS, Bjertness E. The importance of social support in the associations between psychological distress and somatic health problems and socio-economic factors among older adults living at home: a cross sectional study. BMC Geriatr. 2012;12(1):1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mahmoud AS, Elsayed Berma A, Saleh Gabal SAA. Relationship between social support and the quality of life among psychiatric patients. J Psychiatry Psychiatric Disorders. 2017;01(02):57–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Beauregard N, Marchand A, Blanc M-E. What do we know about the non-work determinants of workers’ mental health? A systematic review of longitudinal studies. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Leigh-Hunt N, Bagguley D, Bash K, Turner V, Turnbull S, Valtorta N, et al. An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation and loneliness. Public Health. 2017;152:157–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Terry R, Townley G. Exploring the role of social support in promoting community integration: an integrated literature review. Am J Community Psychol. 2019;64(3–4):509–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tol WA, Barbui C, Galappatti A, Silove D, Betancourt TS, Souza R, et al. Mental health and psychosocial support in humanitarian settings: linking practice and research. Lancet. 2011;378(9802):1581–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang J, Mann F, Lloyd-Evans M, Ma RR, Johnson S. Associations between loneliness and perceived social support and outcomes of mental health problems: a systematic review. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18(1):156.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Beckers T, Maassen N, Koekkoek B, Tiemens B, Hutschemaekers G. Can social support be improved in people with a severe mental illness? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr Psychol. 2022.

  33. Vaingankar JA, Abdin E, Chong SA, Shafie S, Sambasivam R, Zhang YJ, et al. The association of mental disorders with perceived social support, and the role of marital status: results from a National cross-sectional survey. Archives Public Health. 2020;78(1):108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. El-Monshed A, Amr M. Association between perceived social support and recovery among patients with schizophrenia. Int J Afr Nurs Sci. 2020;13:100236.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Baiden P, Den Dunnen W, Fallon B. Examining the independent effect of social support on unmet mental healthcare needs among Canadians: findings from a population-based study. Soc Indic Res. 2017;130(3):1229–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Forrester-Jones R, Carpenter J, Coolen-Schrijner P, Cambridge P, Tate A, Hallam A, et al. Good friends are hard to find? The social networks of people with mental illness 12 years after deinstitutionalisation. J Mental Health. 2012;21(1):4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Vaingankar JA, Abdin E, Chong SA, Shafie S, Sambasivam R, Zhang YJ et al. The association of mental disorders with perceived social support, and the role of marital status: results from a National cross-sectional survey. Archives Public Health. 2020;78(1).

  38. Wang J, Mann F, Lloyd-Evans B, Ma R, Johnson S. Associations between loneliness and perceived social support and outcomes of mental health problems: a systematic review. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18(1).

  39. Mahmoud AS, Berma AE, Gabal S. Relationship between social support and the quality of life among psychiatric patients. J Psychiatry Psychiatric Disorders. 2017;1(2):57–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Meskerem Mekonnen B, Boru Z, Yohannis D, Abebaw, Addis Birhanu. Level of perceived social support and associated factors among people withschizophrenia attending out patient department at Amanuel mental specializedhospital, addis Ababa. Ethiopia J Psychiatry 2019;22(1).

  41. Barnes TR, Mutsatsa SH, Hutton SB, Watt HC, Joyce EM. Comorbid substance use and age at onset of schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry. 2006;188(3):237–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Yanos PT, DeLuca JS, Roe D, Lysaker PH. The impact of illness identity on recovery from severe mental illness: A review of the evidence. Psychiatry Res. 2020;288:112950.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Samuel T, Nigussie K, Mirkena Y, Azale T. Relationship between social support and schizophrenia relapse among patients with schizophrenia on follow-up at Amanuel mental specialized hospital, addis Ababa, Ethiopia: A case-control study. Front Psychiatry. 2022;13:980614.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Shumye S, Amare T, Derajew H, Endris M, Molla W, Mengistu N. Perceived quality of life and associated factors among patients with severe mental illness in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Psychol. 2021;9:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Canty-Mitchell J, Zimet GD. Psychometric properties of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support in urban adolescents. Am J Community Psychol. 2000;28(3):391–400.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Dambi JM, Corten L, Chiwaridzo M, Jack H, Mlambo T, Jelsma J. A systematic review of the psychometric properties of the cross-cultural translations and adaptations of the multidimensional perceived social support scale (MSPSS). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Wang Y, Wan Q, Huang Z, Huang L, Kong F. Psychometric properties of multi-dimensional scale of perceived social support in Chinese parents of children with cerebral palsy. Front Psychol. 2017;8:2020.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Stewart RC, Umar E, Tomenson B, Creed F. Validation of the multi-dimensional scale of perceived social support (MSPSS) and the relationship between social support, intimate partner violence and antenatal depression in Malawi. BMC Psychiatry. 2014;14(1):1–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, Farley GK. The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. J Pers Assess. 1988;52(1):30–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Robins RW, Hendin HM, Trzesniewski KH. Measuring global self-esteem: construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2001;27(2):151–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Stone JK, Shafer LA, Graff LA, Lix L, Witges K, Targownik LE, et al. Utility of the MARS-5 in assessing medication adherence in IBD. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2021;27(3):317–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Ediger JP, Walker JR, Graff L, Lix L, Clara I, Rawsthorne P, et al. Predictors of medication adherence in inflammatory bowel disease. LWW. 2007:1417–26.

  53. Humeniuk R, Ali R, Babor TF, Farrell M, Formigoni ML, Jittiwutikarn J, et al. Validation of the alcohol, smoking and substance involvement screening test (ASSIST). Addiction. 2008;103(6):1039–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kadouri A, Corruble E, Falissard B. The improved clinical global impression scale (iCGI): development and validation in depression. BMC Psychiatry. 2007;7(1):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Gelaye B, Williams MA, Lemma S, Deyessa N, Bahretibeb Y, Shibre T, et al. Diagnostic validity of the composite international diagnostic interview (CIDI) depression module in an East African population. Int J Psychiatry Med. 2013;46(4):387–405.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev. 2007;82(4):591–605.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Acoba EF. Social support and mental health: the mediating role of perceived stress. Front Psychol. 2024;15:1330720.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Goldberg RW, Rollins AL, Lehman AF. Social network correlates among people with psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2003;26(4):393.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Brunt D, Hansson L. The social networks of persons with severe mental illness in in-patient settings and supported community settings. J Mental Health. 2002;11(6):611–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Cameron SL, Tchernegovski P, Maybery D. Mental health service users’ experiences and perspectives of family involvement in their care: A systematic literature review. J Mental Health. 2023;32(3):699–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Deribew A, Tesfaye M, Hailmariam D, Tadesse M. The role of social support in preventing psychological distress among Ethiopian immigrants in America. Int J Mental Health. 2011;40(3):55–69.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Abate T, Belachew T. Family support and health Care-Seeking behavior in rural Ethiopia. J Community Health. 2017;42(2):264–71.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Uchino BN. Social support and physical health: Understanding the health consequences of relationships. Yale University Press; 2004.

  64. Feeney BC, Collins NL. A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality Social Psychol Rev. 2015;19(2):113–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Pokharel B, Pokharel A. Perceived social support among mentally ill patients. J Lumbini Med Coll. 2014;2(1):14–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Cohen S, Wills TA. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol Bull. 1985;98(2):310.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Fan CH, Hsu SC, Hsiao FH, Chang CM, Liu CY, Lai YM et al. The association of social support and symptomatic remission among Community-Dwelling schizophrenia patients: A Cross-Sectional study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(8).

  68. Angermeyer MC, Dietrich S. Public beliefs about and attitudes towards people with mental illness: a review of population studies. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 2006;113(3):163–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Perlick DA, Rosenheck RA, Miklowitz DJ, Kaczynski R, Link B, Ketter T, et al. Caregiver burden and health in bipolar disorder: a cluster analytic approach. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2008;196(6):484–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Bayer JK, Peay MY. Predicting intentions to seek help from professional mental health services. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1997;31(4):504–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Babaei S, Abolhasani S. Family’s supportive behaviors in the care of the patient admitted to the cardiac care unit: A qualitative study. J Caring Sci. 2020;9(2):80–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. DiMatteo MR. Social support and patient adherence to medical treatment: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2004;23(2):207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Wang J, Mann F, Lloyd-Evans B, Ma R, Johnson S. Associations between loneliness and perceived social support and outcomes of mental health problems: a systematic review. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18:1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Cummings SM, Kropf NP. Formal and informal support for older adults with severe mental illness. Aging Ment Health. 2009;13(4):619–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Corrigan PW, Phelan SM. Social support and recovery in people with serious mental illnesses. Commun Ment Health J. 2004;40:513–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Mojtabai R. Americans’ attitudes toward mental health treatment seeking: 1990–2003. Psychiatric Serv. 2007;58(5):642–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Deković M, Meeus W. Peer relations in adolescence: effects of parenting and adolescents’ self-concept. J Adolesc. 1997;20(2):163–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Marshall EM, Parker PD, Ciarrochi J, Sahdra BK. Rejection sensitivity and low Self-Esteem as risk factors for social anxiety in adolescence: A Five-Year longitudinal study. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2020;48(6):967–78.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Cameron JJ, Hodge J. The relationship between Self-Esteem and sensitivity to rejection. Pers Indiv Differ. 2020:152.

  80. Asendorpf JB, Van Aken MA. Personality–relationship transaction in adolescence: core versus surface personality characteristics. J Pers. 2003;71(4):629–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Hassan SS, Zaki SM. Social support and its relation with medication adherence among patients with psychiatric illness. IOSR J Nurs Health Sci (IOSR-JNHS) Volume. 2018;7:83–91.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Jiang N, Jin W, Fu Z, Cao H, Zheng H, Wang Q, et al. Effects of social support on medication adherence among patients with schizophrenia: serial multiple mediation model. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2024;18:947–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Kamaradova D, Latalova K, Prasko J, Kubinek R, Vrbova K, Mainerova B et al. Connection between self-stigma, adherence to treatment, and discontinuation of medication. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016:1289–98.

  84. Fung KM, Tsang HW, Corrigan PW. Self-stigma of people with schizophrenia as predictor of their adherence to psychosocial treatment. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2008;32(2):95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia

    Wondale Getinet Alemu & Anna Ziersch

  2. Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia

    Wondale Getinet Alemu

  3. Research Centre for Public Health, Equity, and Human Flourishing, Torrens University Australia, Adelaide Campus, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

    Lillian Mwanri

  4. School of Psychology, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

    Clemence Due

  5. Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia

    Telake Azale

Authors
  1. Wondale Getinet Alemu
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lillian Mwanri
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Clemence Due
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Telake Azale
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anna Ziersch
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: Wondale Getinet Alemu, Lillian Mwanri, Clemence Due, Telake Azalea, Anna Ziersch. Data curation: Wondale Getinet Alemu. Formal analysis: Wondale Getinet Alemu. Investigation: Wondale Getinet Alemu. Methodology: Wondale Getinet Alemu, Lillian Mwanri, Clemence Due, Telake Azale, Anna Ziersch. Supervision: Wondale Getinet Alemu, Lillian Mwanri, Clemence Due, Telake Azale, Anna Ziersch Writing original draft: Wondale Getinet AlemuReview & Editing: Wondale Getinet Alemu, Lillian Mwanri, Clemence Due, Telake Azale, Anna Ziersch.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wondale Getinet Alemu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Flinders University Human Research Ethics Committee approved with reference number 5416.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alemu, W.G., Mwanri, L., Due, C. et al. Prevalence and factors influencing low social support from family, friends, and significant others among people with mental illness attending psychiatric outpatient clinics in Gondar, Ethiopia. BMC Psychiatry 25, 429 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-025-06889-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-025-06889-y

Keywords

BMC Psychiatry

ISSN: 1471-244X

Contact us