Senior researcher Healthcare System and Governance
Publicatie
Publication date
Social capital, collective efficacy and the provision of services and amenities by municipalities.
Waverijn, G., Groenewegen, P.P., Klerk, M. de. Social capital, collective efficacy and the provision of services and amenities by municipalities. Health & Place: 2017, 25(2), p. 414-423.
Download the PDF
Differential provision of local services and amenities has been proposed as a mechanism behind the relationship between social capital and health.
Aim
The aim of this study was to investigate whether social capital and collective efficacy are related to the provision of social support services and amenities in Dutch municipalities, against a background of decentralisation of long-term care to municipalities.
Methods
We used data on neighbourhood social capital, collective efficacy (the extent to which people are willing to work for the common good), and the provision of services and amenities in 2012. We included the services municipalities provide to support informal caregivers (e.g. respite care), individual services and support (e.g. domiciliary help), and general and collective services and amenities (e.g. lending point for wheelchairs).
Data for social capital were collected between May 2011 and September 2012. Social capital was measured by focusing on contacts between neighbours. A social capital measure was estimated for 414 municipalities with ecometric measurements. A measure of collective efficacy was constructed based on information about the experienced responsibility for the liveability of the neighbourhood by residents in 2012, average charity collection returns in municipalities in 2012, voter turnout at the municipal elections in 2010 and the percentage of blood donors in 2012.
Conclusions
We conducted Poisson regression and negative binomial regression to test our hypotheses. We found no relationship between social capital and the provision of services and amenities in municipalities. We found an interaction effect (coefficient = 3.11, 95% CI = 0.72–5.51, P = 0.011) of social capital and collective efficacy on the provision of support services for informal caregivers in rural municipalities. To gain more insight in the relationship between social capital and health, it will be important to study the relationship between social capital and differential provision of services and amenities more extensively and in different contexts. (aut. ref.)
Aim
The aim of this study was to investigate whether social capital and collective efficacy are related to the provision of social support services and amenities in Dutch municipalities, against a background of decentralisation of long-term care to municipalities.
Methods
We used data on neighbourhood social capital, collective efficacy (the extent to which people are willing to work for the common good), and the provision of services and amenities in 2012. We included the services municipalities provide to support informal caregivers (e.g. respite care), individual services and support (e.g. domiciliary help), and general and collective services and amenities (e.g. lending point for wheelchairs).
Data for social capital were collected between May 2011 and September 2012. Social capital was measured by focusing on contacts between neighbours. A social capital measure was estimated for 414 municipalities with ecometric measurements. A measure of collective efficacy was constructed based on information about the experienced responsibility for the liveability of the neighbourhood by residents in 2012, average charity collection returns in municipalities in 2012, voter turnout at the municipal elections in 2010 and the percentage of blood donors in 2012.
Conclusions
We conducted Poisson regression and negative binomial regression to test our hypotheses. We found no relationship between social capital and the provision of services and amenities in municipalities. We found an interaction effect (coefficient = 3.11, 95% CI = 0.72–5.51, P = 0.011) of social capital and collective efficacy on the provision of support services for informal caregivers in rural municipalities. To gain more insight in the relationship between social capital and health, it will be important to study the relationship between social capital and differential provision of services and amenities more extensively and in different contexts. (aut. ref.)
Differential provision of local services and amenities has been proposed as a mechanism behind the relationship between social capital and health.
Aim
The aim of this study was to investigate whether social capital and collective efficacy are related to the provision of social support services and amenities in Dutch municipalities, against a background of decentralisation of long-term care to municipalities.
Methods
We used data on neighbourhood social capital, collective efficacy (the extent to which people are willing to work for the common good), and the provision of services and amenities in 2012. We included the services municipalities provide to support informal caregivers (e.g. respite care), individual services and support (e.g. domiciliary help), and general and collective services and amenities (e.g. lending point for wheelchairs).
Data for social capital were collected between May 2011 and September 2012. Social capital was measured by focusing on contacts between neighbours. A social capital measure was estimated for 414 municipalities with ecometric measurements. A measure of collective efficacy was constructed based on information about the experienced responsibility for the liveability of the neighbourhood by residents in 2012, average charity collection returns in municipalities in 2012, voter turnout at the municipal elections in 2010 and the percentage of blood donors in 2012.
Conclusions
We conducted Poisson regression and negative binomial regression to test our hypotheses. We found no relationship between social capital and the provision of services and amenities in municipalities. We found an interaction effect (coefficient = 3.11, 95% CI = 0.72–5.51, P = 0.011) of social capital and collective efficacy on the provision of support services for informal caregivers in rural municipalities. To gain more insight in the relationship between social capital and health, it will be important to study the relationship between social capital and differential provision of services and amenities more extensively and in different contexts. (aut. ref.)
Aim
The aim of this study was to investigate whether social capital and collective efficacy are related to the provision of social support services and amenities in Dutch municipalities, against a background of decentralisation of long-term care to municipalities.
Methods
We used data on neighbourhood social capital, collective efficacy (the extent to which people are willing to work for the common good), and the provision of services and amenities in 2012. We included the services municipalities provide to support informal caregivers (e.g. respite care), individual services and support (e.g. domiciliary help), and general and collective services and amenities (e.g. lending point for wheelchairs).
Data for social capital were collected between May 2011 and September 2012. Social capital was measured by focusing on contacts between neighbours. A social capital measure was estimated for 414 municipalities with ecometric measurements. A measure of collective efficacy was constructed based on information about the experienced responsibility for the liveability of the neighbourhood by residents in 2012, average charity collection returns in municipalities in 2012, voter turnout at the municipal elections in 2010 and the percentage of blood donors in 2012.
Conclusions
We conducted Poisson regression and negative binomial regression to test our hypotheses. We found no relationship between social capital and the provision of services and amenities in municipalities. We found an interaction effect (coefficient = 3.11, 95% CI = 0.72–5.51, P = 0.011) of social capital and collective efficacy on the provision of support services for informal caregivers in rural municipalities. To gain more insight in the relationship between social capital and health, it will be important to study the relationship between social capital and differential provision of services and amenities more extensively and in different contexts. (aut. ref.)