Cross-sectional studies
|
|
CES-D
|
Network composition (all family, mostly family, equal members of family and friends, mostly friends, all friends)
|
3,777
|
+
|
Good
|
Becker et al., 2019
|
Euro-D
|
Network types (partner, children, other relatives, family, friends, diverse)
|
52,513
|
+
|
Poor
|
Cao et al., 2015
|
GDS-30
|
Network types (prestige occupation scores: low, middle and high network)
|
928
|
+
|
Good
|
Chi & Chou, 2001
|
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
|
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)
|
4,608
|
+
|
Good
|
Fiori et al., 2006
|
CES-D (11)
|
Network types (nonfamily restricted, nonfriends, family, diverse, friends)
|
1,669
|
+
|
Good
|
Golden et al., 2009
|
GMS
|
Network types (locally integrated social network vs. any other sort of network)
|
1,299
|
+
|
Good
|
Gumà & Fernández-Carro, 2021
|
Euro-D
|
Network types (partner and others, only relatives, only friends, mixed composition)
|
6,820
|
0
|
Good
|
Harasemiw et al., 2019
|
CES-D (10)
|
Network types (diverse, family-focused, few children, few friends, restricted)
|
8,782
|
+
|
Good
|
Kim & Lee, 2019
|
GDS-15
|
Network types based on LSNS (Friend, Family, Restricted, Diverse)
|
1,000
|
+
|
Fair
|
Li et al., 2019
|
PHQ-9
|
Proportion kin
Proportion female
Proportion coresident
|
3,157
|
0
0
+
|
Fair
|
Litwin, 2011
|
CES-D (8)
|
Network types (Diverse, friend, congregant, family, restricted)
|
1,350
|
+
|
Fair
|
Litwin, 2012
|
CES-D (8)
|
Network types (only focusing on family and restricted)
Family network
Restricted network
|
1,349
|
0
+
|
Fair
|
Mechakra-Tahiri et al., 2010
|
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)
|
2,670
|
0
|
Good
|
Park et al., 2014
|
CES-D (10)
|
Network types (restricted, couple-focused, friend, diverse)
|
4,251
|
+
|
Fair
|
Park et al., 2018
|
GDS-15
|
Network types (diverse/family, diverse/friend, friend-focused, distant, restricted)
|
6,900
|
+
|
Good
|
Pilehvari et al., 2023
|
CES-D (20)
|
Diversity: Index of Qualitative Variation based on various relationship ties
|
1,098
|
0
|
Good
|
Sicotte et al., 2008
|
GDS-15
|
Diversity: number of different types of relationships each participant had: spouse, children, siblings, relatives/friends (range: 0–4)
|
1,714
|
+
|
Good
|
Sohn et al., 2017
|
CES-D (20)
|
Network types (restricted, diverse, congregant-restricted, congregant, family)
|
795
|
+
|
Good
|
Stoeckel & Litwin, 2016
|
Euro-D
|
Network types (distal children, proximal family, spouse, other family, friend, other, no network)
|
26,401
|
+
|
Fair
|
Vicente & Guadalupe, 2022
|
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
|
CES-D (11)
|
Type proportions (geographically distant male youth, geographically close/emotionally distant family, close family)
|
195
|
0
|
Fair
|
Wojszel & Politynska, 2021
|
GDS-15
|
Composition
(Family dependent; Locally integrated; Local self-contained; Wider community focused; Private restricted; Unclassified)
|
509
|
+
|
Good
|
Ye & Zhang, 2019
|
GDS-15
|
Network types (diverse, restricted, family-restricted, family, friends)
|
405
|
+
|
Fair
|
Longitudinal studies
|
Bui, 2020
|
CES-D (11)
|
Proportion female
|
2,200
|
0
|
Good
|
Chao, 2011
|
CES-D (10)
|
Proportion of close family members (spouses, children, and grandchildren) in the network
|
4,049
|
+
|
Good
|
Coleman et al., 2022
|
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
|
CES-D (20)
|
Changes in network types (family dependent, local self-contained, private restricted, restricted mixed)
|
783
|
+
|
Good
|
Kim et al., 2016
|
CES-D (10)
|
Changes in network types (restricted, modern-family, friend, diverse)
|
3,501
|
+
|
Good
|
Litwin & Levinsky, 2021
|
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
|
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
|
a D: Measurement of depression
b SN: Measurement of social network
c n: Sample size, baseline sample was used in longitudinal studies
d Results: 0 indicates no sig. relationship (p ≥ 0.05), + indicates sig. relationship (p < 0.05)
|