Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04

    • Research quantifying community capacity has identified stati

    2018-11-05

    Research quantifying Oxamflatin Supplier capacity has identified statistically significant differences amongst neighbourhoods (Jung & Rhee, 2013) and between towns (Lovell et al., 2015a), thus confirming the importance of place to our social relationships. Place is recognised by geographers as those aspects of space that possess meaning for both individuals and collectives (Cresswell, 2014). Research examining the impact of such place effects on health has garnered considerable attention in the fields of sociology, geography, and public health (see Macintyre, Ellaway and Cummins (2002) and Pearce (2007) for discussion). Frequently measured with multi-level studies, place effects are understood as the impact that contextual variables have on health outcomes (Pearce, 2007; Bentley & Kavanagh, 2007). Yet, within the geographic literature, researchers have highlighted that place effects may be multiple and impact people and places differentially (Macintyre et al., 2002). Place are locations individuals imbue with a sense of meaning arising from their connections with people, social institutions and the built environment; this paper explores how such perceptions of one\'s community, may be associated with self-rated health.
    Measuring individual community capacity and health Community capacity building has gained traction as a strengths-based health promotion tool as it emphasises local ownership over both health problems and their solutions. Health promoters have recognised the appeal of such approaches to communities so commonly adopt capacity building as a means to achieve the goals of their health promotion programmes (Hawe et al., 1997; Lovell et al., 2011). Despite support for the concept, evidence that initiatives to build community capacity can improve health outcomes is far from conclusive. Promising work by Jung and Viswanath (2013) in Seoul, Korea has identified an association between community capacity and self-rated health (dichotomised as low versus high). However, a paucity of research into the health outcomes of investing in community capacity may be leading supporters to overstate the benefits of capacity building (Ebbesen et al., 2004; Liberato et al., 2011). Jung and Viswanath (2013) justifiably conclude that building community capacity should be further investigated as a health promotion tool (Jung & Viswanath, 2013). Evidence highlighting the affective dimensions of place clarifies the value of examining community capacity from the perspective of residents. In the current study, we use the qualified term ‘individual community capacity’ to capture the perceptions, experiences, and attitudes participants held about their town. When aggregated, individual community capacity ought to be an indicator for the community capacity of a place. We reserve the unqualified term ‘community capacity’ for those instances where the town or neighbourhood is the unit of analysis. Community capacity is captured through six distinct but interrelated constructs. Each construct, or ‘dimension’, reflects an emphasis of the community capacity literature. First, ‘participation’ in one\'s community has been associated with higher self-rated health in Germany (Pollack & von dem Knesebeck, 2004), less emotional distress but, interestingly, not overall health status in Canada (Veenstra et al., 2005). Constructs were measured on scales using likert-type items, for example, measuring community participation, we sought to capture residents’ perceived support (in-kind and financially) for local groups with questions such as “I support the local school whenever I can”, “Participating in local clubs and events is good for the community”. Second, ‘sense of place’ taps into notions of place attachment as a source of identity (Stedman, 2002); survey questions addressed residents’ attachment to the landscape and history of their town e.g. “I am very attached to the local environment and landscape”, “I see how economic changes have affected [my town].” Whereas sense of place emphasises the affective experience of belonging, ‘community attitudes’, captured participant\'s satisfaction with their place of residence e.g. “My town has a positive future.” “I am happy to live in [name of town].” Fourth, ‘social cohesion’ addressed residents’ perceptions of their community as a trusting and inclusive place e.g. “I have little in common with most people who live here” (reverse scored). Linden-Bostrom et al. (2010) and self-rated health were indirectly associated but social support remained an important factor when rating one\'s health.