20 Chapter 1 Laub, Nagin, & Sampson, 1998; Lodewijks, de Ruiter, & Doreleijers, 2010). One study among a forensic population with mental and substance use problems showed that large networks consisting of network members with prosocial attitudes predicted decreased probation violations and better treatment compliance (Skeem et al., 2009). Furthermore, good relationships with professionals and core network members, particularly with clinicians working with shared decision-making, decreased violations. Social network interventions Since the mid-nineties, various types of interventions have been developed to enhance informal supportive social networks (Kawachi & Berkman, 2001). A review distinguished three overarching approaches of social network interventions for psychiatric populations with different social network needs: (1) developing new social connections for patients with small networks, with few connections between different network members and network groups (e.g., family, friends, and colleagues), and with less access to various support groups (e.g., family, friends, and professionals), (2) maintaining and enhancing existing social connections for patients with sufficient network members but lacking social support or skills to develop and maintain supportive connections, and (3) enhancing family connections for patients with family members who are overburdened, family conflicts, or with unfortunate family interaction patterns (Biegel, Tracy, & Corvo, 1994). In line with these approaches, different types of interventions are described, such as social skills training, support groups, self-help groups, mutual-help groups, and volunteer-linking (Biegel et al., 1994; Perese & Wolf, 2005). Multiple reviews demonstrated modest effects of social network interventions on (mental) health and behavioral outcomes, including specific reviews of support group and volunteer-linking interventions (Anderson, Laxhman, & Priebe, 2015; Hunter et al., 2019; Latkin & Knowlton, 2015; Mead, Lester, Chew-Graham, Gask, & Bower, 2010; Siette, Cassidy, & Priebe, 2017). However, the need for additional empirical research regarding social network interventions for psychiatric patients has been repeatedly expressed to develop evidence-based interventions and determine which patients might benefit from these interventions. Moreover, studies examining the effectiveness of social network interventions in forensic psychiatric populations are warranted (Pettus-Davis, Howard, Roberts-Lewis, & Scheyett, 2011). As described in previous literature, volunteer-linking intervention aimed at developing new social connections could be indicated for patients with small networks and a lack of supportive network members or support groups (Biegel et al., 1994; Heaney & Israel, 2008). Given the evidence that informal social networks of forensic patients can become
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw