Exploring how a mixed methods approach to network analysis can help identify support available to families who live with an adult with an intellectual disability

Context: Families who provide long term care to an adult with intellectual disabilities (IDs), over time, often adapt and develop new skills associated with their caregiving role. However, a severe lack of appropriate support and resources poses a risk to family carers’ health, wellbeing and ability to continue providing support to their relative.
Objective: To adopted a mixed methods approach to social network analysis to explore current levels of support available to families who live with an adult relative with IDs and identify gaps in support needs.
Method: A mixed-methods approach to social network analysis was adopted using The Practitioner Assessment of Network Type (PANT) questionnaire and qualitative network mapping. The PANT questionnaire enables the categorisation of social networks into types based on answers to eight questions which targets available support. Qualitative network maps were manually completed using paper, pencil and sticky labels and a narrative approach to qualitative ‘interviews’ was adopted during completion of the network maps.
Findings: Of the 32 family carers who took part, 18 (56.25%) were split equally between the two smallest and more isolated network types (Locally Self-Contained and Private Restricted). A further six (18.8%) participants had Family Dependent network types. All these networks carry greater risks of isolation and mental health problems. Results of a Fisher’s Exact test (10.09, p =.01) indicated a significant association between providing full-time care and having more isolated networks. Thematic analysis of network maps and narratives revealed four main themes and 10 subthemes which explored equivalence and variation across support networks, gaps and changes in support networks.
Limitations: Social network maps are constructed from the viewpoint of the individual and therefore, may carry some subjectivity. The cross-sectional design and small number of participants did not allow for generalisation of findings. The small study population did not enable robust statistical analysis to be conducted.
Conclusions: The findings highlight how social network analysis could be used as a method to explore available support and identify the deficits in support which could be detrimental to family carers’ health and wellbeing.