Perceived Social Support and Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Symptoms Among Adults Receiving Mental Health Care in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND/

OBJECTIVES

Perceived social support is associated with psychological well-being, but clinical evidence from adults receiving mental health care in Saudi Arabia remains limited. This study examined associations between perceived social support and self-reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress among adults receiving mental health care in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analytical study was conducted among 307 adults receiving mental health care in selected Ministry of Health facilities. Participants completed an Arabic self-report questionnaire including sociodemographic variables, the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21. Descriptive statistics, internal consistency testing, Spearman correlations, group comparisons, and multivariable linear regression with HC3 robust standard errors were used.

RESULTS

The total DASS-21 item-average score was 0.755 ± 0.660, with stress showing the highest mean score. The total MSPSS score was 4.935 ± 1.536. Total perceived social support was inversely associated with total psychological symptoms (rho = -0.229, p < 0.001), depression (rho = -0.270, p < 0.001), anxiety (rho = -0.223, p < 0.001), and stress (rho = -0.157, p = 0.006). In the adjusted regression model, total perceived social support remained independently associated with lower total psychological symptom scores (B = -0.111, robust SE = 0.030, 95% CI: -0.170 to -0.052, p < 0.001). The model explained 8.4% of the variance in total psychological symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher perceived social support was associated with lower self-reported depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms, although the magnitude of associations was small to modest. Findings support considering perceived social support as part of psychosocial assessment in mental health care. These findings should be interpreted cautiously because of the cross-sectional design, convenience sampling, limited clinical characterization, and modest explained variance.