Page 19 - Social networks of people with mild intellectual disabilities: characteristics and interventions

General Introduction
With respect to the functional characteristics of the social networks of
people with ID, research shows the main providers of both emotional and 1 practical support to be support staff. Other network members with ID were
the second most frequent providers of all types of support (Forrester-Jones
et al., 2006). Meeting a need for “stability” and “connection” has not had much consideration in the literature. According to Baars (1994), “stability” is the
need to have ties which are maintained with a certain degree of preference as
opposed to habit and “connection” is the need to belong, to find support and
to make connections on the basis of shared interests, values and background. Connection should be assessed because relationships should be promoted
based on mutual interests and in committed environments (Lunsky, 2006).
It has been shown that social support benefits both physical and mental health and is related to lower rates of morbidity and mortality in the general population (e.g. Cohen & Wills, 1985; Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Layton, 2010; Umberson & Montez, 2010). This positive influence of social support on health can be explained by two models. The first model is the main- or direct effect model. A person’s degree of integration in a large network, influences health (Cohen & Wills, 1985). The second model is the buffering model. Perceived social support protects people from the potentially negative effects of stressful events, if the support is responsive to the needs elicited by the stressful events (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Also, for people with ID, social support can act as a buffer between the impact of stress and the mental health consequences (Scott & Havercamp, 2014). Likewise, access to social support has a buffering effect on the association between child behaviour problems and stress for parents with ID (Meppelder, Hodes, Kef, & Schuengel, 2015). Finally, there is some evidence for an association between social support and QOL of adults with ID (e.g. Bramston, Chipuer, & Pretty, 2005; Lunsky & Benson, 2001; Miller & Chan, 2008).
Therefore, it is necessary to enhance the networks of people with mild ID if, according to the persons themselves, they provide insufficient support. It is crucial to focus on their own perspectives, because they are the experts on their feelings, experiences and thus on their own opinions (Cambridge & Forrester- Jones, 2003; Forrester-Jones et al., 2006) and they are reliable reporters of social support (Lunsky & Benson, 1997). However, research on social networks from the perspective of the person with ID is sparse (Emerson & Hatton, 2008). In particular, research on their perceptions and valuations (e.g. satisfaction and wishes regarding their networks) is lacking. Research shows that people
17