Effects of advice-seeking patterns on community coalitions' outcomes: A social network analysis.

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Yvonne Gaddy, Rebecca Wells, Sarah M Chilenski, Eric C Jones, Louis D Brown
{"title":"Effects of advice-seeking patterns on community coalitions' outcomes: A social network analysis.","authors":"Yvonne Gaddy, Rebecca Wells, Sarah M Chilenski, Eric C Jones, Louis D Brown","doi":"10.1002/ajcp.12808","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Community coalitions are well-positioned to address local conditions affecting health. Coalitions rely on interactions among members to address community issues and plan for sustainability. Individuals and agencies participate voluntarily, and substantive decisions are generally made as a group. Hence, coalitions operate largely through advice rather than top-down directives. This study examined whether advice-seeking patterns within coalitions influenced members' perceptions of their collective outcomes. Indegree advice-seeking is centered on consulting a few specialized sources and outdegree advice-seeking draws upon a few people to reach out to numerous others. Surveys at two timepoints collected data from an unduplicated total of 1256 members of 62 coalitions in Pennsylvania and Missouri on their advice-seeking ties, with responses aggregated to the coalition level. Regression analyses examined how coalition patterns of intersectoral communication and indegree and outdegree centralization, respectively, were associated with changes in perceived community improvement, sustainability planning, and coalition sustainability. Intersectoral communication was not related to coalition outcomes. Indegree advice-seeking centralization was negatively associated with planning for coalition sustainability (B = -0.43, β = -0.22, 95% confidence interval [-0.84, -0.01], p < .05); and outdegree advice-seeking centralization was negatively associated with coalition sustainability (B = -0.88, β = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.65, -0.10], p < .05). These findings suggest that decentralized advice-seeking patterns foster coalition sustainability.</p>","PeriodicalId":7576,"journal":{"name":"American journal of community psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of community psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12808","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Community coalitions are well-positioned to address local conditions affecting health. Coalitions rely on interactions among members to address community issues and plan for sustainability. Individuals and agencies participate voluntarily, and substantive decisions are generally made as a group. Hence, coalitions operate largely through advice rather than top-down directives. This study examined whether advice-seeking patterns within coalitions influenced members' perceptions of their collective outcomes. Indegree advice-seeking is centered on consulting a few specialized sources and outdegree advice-seeking draws upon a few people to reach out to numerous others. Surveys at two timepoints collected data from an unduplicated total of 1256 members of 62 coalitions in Pennsylvania and Missouri on their advice-seeking ties, with responses aggregated to the coalition level. Regression analyses examined how coalition patterns of intersectoral communication and indegree and outdegree centralization, respectively, were associated with changes in perceived community improvement, sustainability planning, and coalition sustainability. Intersectoral communication was not related to coalition outcomes. Indegree advice-seeking centralization was negatively associated with planning for coalition sustainability (B = -0.43, β = -0.22, 95% confidence interval [-0.84, -0.01], p < .05); and outdegree advice-seeking centralization was negatively associated with coalition sustainability (B = -0.88, β = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.65, -0.10], p < .05). These findings suggest that decentralized advice-seeking patterns foster coalition sustainability.

咨询模式对社区联盟结果的影响:一个社会网络分析。
社区联盟在处理影响健康的地方条件方面处于有利地位。联盟依靠成员之间的互动来解决社区问题并制定可持续发展计划。个人和机构自愿参与,实质性决策通常是作为一个群体做出的。因此,联盟主要通过建议而不是自上而下的指令来运作。本研究考察了联盟内部的咨询模式是否会影响成员对集体结果的看法。学位咨询集中于咨询少数专业资源,而学位咨询则吸引少数人向其他许多人求助。在两个时间点进行的调查收集了来自宾夕法尼亚州和密苏里州62个联盟的1256名成员关于他们寻求咨询关系的数据,这些数据是不重复的,并将反馈汇总到联盟层面。回归分析分别考察了部门间沟通、程度和程度外集中化的联盟模式如何与感知社区改善、可持续性规划和联盟可持续性的变化相关联。部门间沟通与联盟的结果无关。咨询集中化程度与联盟可持续性规划负相关(B = -0.43, β = -0.22, 95%可信区间[-0.84,-0.01],p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
9.70%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Community Psychology publishes original quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research; theoretical papers; empirical reviews; reports of innovative community programs or policies; and first person accounts of stakeholders involved in research, programs, or policy. The journal encourages submissions of innovative multi-level research and interventions, and encourages international submissions. The journal also encourages the submission of manuscripts concerned with underrepresented populations and issues of human diversity. The American Journal of Community Psychology publishes research, theory, and descriptions of innovative interventions on a wide range of topics, including, but not limited to: individual, family, peer, and community mental health, physical health, and substance use; risk and protective factors for health and well being; educational, legal, and work environment processes, policies, and opportunities; social ecological approaches, including the interplay of individual family, peer, institutional, neighborhood, and community processes; social welfare, social justice, and human rights; social problems and social change; program, system, and policy evaluations; and, understanding people within their social, cultural, economic, geographic, and historical contexts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信