131 Effectiveness of a social network intervention 5 A variety of types of social network interventions have been distinguished for psychiatric populations, for example: social support groups, mutual help groups, and trained volunteers (Perese & Wolf, 2005). Recent meta-analytic studies including different social network interventions showed small-to-negligible effects of these interventions in general on social support, and small-to-moderate effects on treatment outcomes (Beckers et al., 2022; Swinkels et al., 2023b). Although personalized interventions targeting patients’ social network and needs outside of the mental healthcare institute appear to be preferred over generic approaches, the most effective approach has yet to be determined (Beckers et al., 2022). In addition, studies examining the effectiveness of social network interventions on treatment outcomes in forensic psychiatric populations are scarce (Pettus-Davis et al., 2011). One small pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing a social support intervention to standard care among former prisoners with substance use disorders showed no between-group effects on social support, substance use, and criminal recidivism (Pettus‐Davis et al., 2017). A larger study examining a combined social network intervention, including peer support and group counseling, showed reduced alcohol use in forensic psychiatric patients receiving the additive combined intervention, compared to patients receiving standard care alone (Rowe et al., 2007). The effectiveness of specific types and components (i.e., one-to-one provision of support or group counseling) of the combined social network intervention on treatment outcomes in forensic populations remains unclear. The results point to the need to further explore which types of social network interventions are effective in improving social networks and other relevant treatment outcomes for forensic populations. The addition of a specific type of social network intervention using trained volunteers from the community (i.e., informal social network intervention) could be a promising approach, since forensic patients often rely on support from professionals (i.e., formal social networks) and are more likely to have network members with risky and criminal behaviors, or to lose support from friends and peers (Skeem et al., 2009; ter Haar-Pomp et al., 2015). Over the past century these interventions, known as befriending (i.e., one-to-one contact between volunteers and participants focused on developing a supportive relationship) and mentoring interventions (i.e., one-to-one contact between volunteers and participants focused on achieving goals), have been applied and studied in various patient populations (Mead et al., 2010; Scottish Mentoring Network, 2005; Siette et al., 2017). Previous meta-analyses showed that (additive) befriending, compared to treatment as usual (TAU) or other control groups, modestly improved depressive symptoms and self-reported outcomes (i.e., mental health, wellbeing, and social network) in patient populations (Mead et al., 2010; Siette et al., 2017). However, clinical trials on befriending among psychiatric
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw