Extent of social support measured by Oslo-3 Social Support Scale (OSS-3). Social support is defined as the perceived availability of people whom the individual trusts and who make one feel cared for, loved, esteemed and valued as a person. It is a strategic concept in understanding the maintenance of health and the development of (mental and somatic) health problems, as well as their prevention. Social support is determined by factors at the individual as well as the social level. Oslo-3 is a composite scale measuring perception of both support and social network. Cultural variations in experiencing and expressing the inner feelings and emotions have to taken into account when interpreting the results.
(1) Age and sex adjusted means score on the Oslo-3 Social Support Scale (OSS-3). Division by strong/ moderate/ poor social support (used in Eurobarometer 58.2.) Timeframe: present. The total score is calculated by adding up the raw scores for each item. The sum of the raw scores has a range from 3-14. A score ranging between 3 and 8 is classified as poor support, a score between 9 and 11 as intermediate support, and a score between 12 and 14 as strong support.
(2) Number of persons on whom the respondent can rely on when help is needed, as measured by EHIS question EN.4: How many people are so close to you that you can count on them if you have serious personal problem? (None / 1 or 2 / 3 to 5 / More than 5). Exact operationalisation to be formulated.
OSS-3: score for the 3 questions: 1) Number of people to count on, 2) Other people’s interest, 3) Help from neighbours. Each question measures a different dimension. The OSS-3 can be used for each separate item as well as for the total score.
Social support is a protective factor in times of stress, Low level of social support is associated with ill-health (both e.g. depression and somatic diseases). It is important for public health policy to collect information on social support to enable both risk assessment and the planning of preventive interventions.
Eurobarometer 58.2 in 2002: EU 15. Eurobarometers are not the optimal source of information, because due to their small sample size, it is not possible to present reliable figures by gender and age. Reported as a sum variable in the Eurobarometer data. Mental Health Indicators pilot survey 2001: DE, FI, FR, GR; used different calculation (mean scores). Data available in MINDFUL database
ECHIM Survey records on 17.4.2007: 16 of 19 countries have prevalence data of varying quality.
As a total score or score for each of the 3 questions seperately? (The latter is recommended by MINDFUL.
Should not be used as composite scale due to low internal consistency?
MINDFUL/WP Mental Health recommendation is that the 6-item BSSQ should replace the Oslo-3 scale because the validity and reliability measures of Oslo-3 have been lower than those of 6-item Brief Social Support Questionnaire (BSSQ) -> what to do? Suggestion by PK, adopt WPMH recommendation. But is OSS-3 more widely used (APS)?
Definiton of social support? Concept to be measured?
Definition of indicator
<p class=\'alertDesc\'>
What the indicator is meant to measure. If not unambiguous, all acceptable alternatives are to be listed in numbered preference order. The final decision on preference order/numbering is to be made by ECHIM coregroup.
</p>
</p>
','../images/definition_1.gif');){kind=link}
<p class=\'alertDesc\'>
How to calculate the indicator (method, numerator, denominator, etc), in the same preference order as above if more than one alternative.
</p>
</p>
','../images/definition_1.gif');){kind=link}
<p class=\'alertDesc\'>
Why the indicator is measured the chosen way (prevalence, incidence, mortality, absolute numbers etc.)? Also reasons for the preferred definition and calculation details can be included here.
</p>
</p>
','../images/definition_1.gif');){kind=link}
)
<p class=\'alertDesc\'>
Should the indicator be stratified by e.g. age, gender, socio-economic status and area
</p>
</p>
','../images/definition_1.gif');){kind=link}
<p class=\'alertDesc\'>
The type of data source; in the same preference order as above (typically either register data or HIS/HES).
</p>
</p>
','../images/definition_1.gif');){kind=link}
<p class=\'alertDesc\'>
Why is this indicator important, from the public health point of view. (For example: size or dynamics of the problem/issue, evidence of the relevance of the issue in public health terms (for determinants) or evidence of intervention effectiveness (for prevention or care issues)).
</p>
</p>
','../images/definition_1.gif');){kind=link}
<p class=\'alertDesc\'>
The recommended data source (e.g. Eurostat, OECD, WHO, national registers or HIS/HES, project databases etc.), in the same preference order as above; some notes on the quality and availability of the data for the indicator. Eventually, also information on the availability in coutries, as derived from the ECHIM survey.
</p>
</p>
','../images/definition_1.gif');){kind=link}
<p class=\'alertDesc\'>
References to original publications, websites, EHIS-question/naire, PHP projects, etc.
</p>
</p>
','../images/definition_1.gif');){kind=link}
<p class=\'alertDesc\'>
What should be done to improve and complete this sheet. Eventually, this cell should be blank.
</p>
</p>
','../images/definition_1.gif');){kind=link}