Table 4.
Overview of results: network composition and depression
| Author | Depression measure | Social network measure | N a | Results b | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-sectional studies | |||||
| Antonucci et al., 1997 [82] | CES-D | Network composition (all family, mostly family, equal members of family and friends, mostly friends, all friends) | 3777 | + | Good |
| Becker et al., 2019 [83] | Euro-D | Network types (partner, children, other relatives, family, friends, diverse) | 52,513 | + | Poor |
| Cao et al., 2015 [133] | GDS-30 | Network types (prestige occupation scores: low, middle and high network) | 928 | + | Good |
| Chi & Chou, 2001 [87] | CES-D (20) |
Network composition Of relatives and friends felt close to Of relatives and friends seen once a month (all family, mostly family, equal members of family and friends, mostly friends, all friends) |
1106 |
0 + |
Good |
| Choi & Jeon, 2021 [120] | GDS-15 | Network types (men: diverse, restricted couple-focused, restricted-unmarried, social-activity-focused, family focused; women: diverse-married, family-focused, restricted-couple-focused, restricted-unmarried, diverse-unmarried) | 4608 | + | Good |
| Fiori et al., 2006 [121] | CES-D (11) | Network types (nonfamily restricted, nonfriends, family, diverse, friends) | 1669 | + | Good |
| Golden et al., 2009 [134] | GMS | Network types (locally integrated social network vs. any other sort of network) | 1299 | + | Good |
| Gumà & Fernández-Carro, 2021 [135] | Euro-D | Network types (partner and others, only relatives, only friends, mixed composition) | 6820 | 0 | Good |
| Harasemiw et al., 2019 [122] | CES-D (10) | Network types (diverse, family-focused, few children, few friends, restricted) | 8782 | + | Good |
| Kim & Lee, 2019 [123] | GDS-15 | Network types based on LSNS (Friend, Family, Restricted, Diverse) | 1000 | + | Fair |
| Li et al., 2019 [100] | PHQ-9 |
Proportion kin Proportion female Proportion coresident |
3157 |
0 0 + |
Fair |
| Litwin, 2011 [124] | CES-D (8) | Network types (Diverse, friend, congregant, family, restricted) | 1350 | + | Fair |
| Litwin, 2012 [125] | CES-D (8) |
Network types (only focusing on family and restricted) Family network Restricted network |
1275 |
0 + |
Fair |
| Mechakra-Tahiri et al., 2010 [136] | ESA-Q | Role diversity: number of different types of relationships that participants had, including those with a partner, adult children, siblings, friends, and members of a community group (low, medium, high) | 2670 | 0 | Good |
| Park et al., 2014 [126] | CES-D (10) | Network types (restricted, couple-focused, friend, diverse) | 4251 | + | Fair |
| Park et al., 2018 [127] | GDS-15 | Network types (diverse/family, diverse/friend, friend-focused, distant, restricted) | 6900 | + | Good |
| Pilehvari et al., 2023 [105] | CES-D (20) | Diversity: Index of Qualitative Variation based on various relationship ties | 1170 | 0 | Good |
| Sicotte et al., 2008 [132] | GDS-15 | Diversity: number of different types of relationships each participant had: spouse, children, siblings, relatives/friends (range 0–4) | 1714 | + | Good |
| Sohn et al., 2017 [128] | CES-D (20) | Network types (restricted, diverse, congregant-restricted, congregant, family) | 795 | + | Good |
| Stoeckel & Litwin, 2016 [137] | Euro-D | Network types (distal children, proximal family, spouse, other family, friend, other, no network) | 26,401 | + | Fair |
| Vicente & Guadalupe, 2022 [107] | GDS-15 |
Proportion of each of the following relational categories: Family Friends Neighbors Workplace Institutional relations |
612 |
0 0 0 0 + |
Poor |
| Webster et al., 2015 [138] | CES-D (11) | Type proportions (geographically distant male youth, geographically close/emotionally distant family, close family) | 195 | 0 | Fair |
| Ye & Zhang, 2019 [129] | GDS-15 | Network types (diverse, restricted, family-restricted, family, friends) | 405 | + | Fair |
| Longitudinal studies | |||||
| Bui, 2020 [19] | CES-D (11) | Proportion female | 2200 | 0 | Good |
| Chao, 2011 [109] | CES-D (10) | Proportion of close family members (spouses, children, and grandchildren) in the network | 4049 | + | Good |
| Coleman et al., 2022 [110] | GDS-15 |
Proportion of alters in the network with whom ego has a very close relationship Proportion of alters in the network with whom ego is in frequent contact Proportion of alters in the network who are related to ego Diversity: number of unique relationship types in a person’s network divided by network size |
113 |
0 0 0 0 |
Good |
| Förster et al., 2018 [131] | CES-D (20) | Changes in network types (family dependent, local self-contained, private restricted, restricted mixed) | 783 | + | Good |
| Kim et al., 2016 [130] | CES-D (10) | Changes in network types (restricted, modern-family, friend, diverse) | 3501 | + | Good |
| Litwin & Levinsky, 2021 [139] | Euro-D | Changes in network types (remains without network, transitions to close-family networks, transition to other networks, transitions from close-family networks, transitions from other networks) | 834 | + | Fair |
| Litwin et al., 2020 [140] | Euro-D | Changes in network types (remains in close-family type, remaining in other network types, transition to other network types, transitions to close-family network types) | 13,767 | + | Fair |
an: Sample size, baseline sample was used in longitudinal studies
bResults: 0 indicates no sig. relationship (p ≥ 0.05), + indicates sig. relationship (p < 0.05)
Depression measures: CES-D Centre of Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, EURO-D EURO geriatric depression scale, ESA-Q Enquête sur la Santé des Aînés Questionnaire, GDS Geriatric Depression Scale, GMS Geriatric Mental State, PHQ-9 Patient Health Questionnaire