Contextual effects of community mobilization and communication capacity as a positive factor for self-rated health status: a multi-level analysis
- 355 Downloads
We examined relationships between individual-level community participation, two types of contextual effects―community capacity for mobilization and capacity for health communication—and residents’ self-reported health status in order to explore the role health communication may play in community building for health.
To estimate multi-level effects of the community participation and the two contextual indicators with self-rated health status, we applied hierarchical generalized linear regression to crosssectional data from the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
After adjusting for individual- and community-level confounders, the likelihood of having high self-rated health status is significantly higher among those who live in a region with higher community capacity for mobilization, higher health communication capacity at the community level, and higher participation in community groups at the individual-level.
Our findings suggest that living in a community characterized by higher levels of communication and mobilization capacity is beneficial to residents’ self-rated health status—increasing the odds of high health status by up to 9 %. Thus, building community capacity in mobilization and health communication may help develop better health promotion campaigns.
KeywordsContextual effects Community capacity Health communication South Korea
- Chaskin RJ, Brown P, Venkatesh S, Vidal A (2001) Building community capacity. Aldine Transaction, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Cordingley S (2000) The definition and principles of volunteering. In: Warburton J, Oppenheimer M (eds) Volunteers and volunteering. Federation Press, Sydney, p 73e82Google Scholar
- Institute for Social Development and Policy Research (ISDPR) (2013) Development of measurement indicators for social quality in South Korea. Seoul National University and Seoul Broadcasting System, SeoulGoogle Scholar
- Jeffres LW, Lee J-W, Neuendorf K, Atkin D (2007) Newspaper reading supports community involvement. Newsp Res J 28:6–23Google Scholar
- Katz E, Lazarsfeld PF (2006) Personal Influence: the part played by people in the flow of mass communications, 2nd edn. Transaction Publishers, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
- Minkler M, Wallerstein N, Wilson N (2008) Improving health through community organization and community building. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K (eds) Health behavior and health education. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 287–312Google Scholar
- Paek H, Yoon S, Shah DV (2005) Local news, social integration, and community participation: hierarchical linear modeling of contextual and cross-level effects. J Mass Commun Q 82:587–606Google Scholar
- Ramanadhan S, Salhi C, Achille E, Baril N, D’Entremont K, Grullon M, Judge C, Oppenheimer S, Reeves C, Savage C, Viswanath K (2012) Addressing cancer disparities via community network mobilization and intersectoral partnerships: a social network analysis. PLoS One 7(2):e32130PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rubin HJ, Rubin IS (2008) Community organizing and development. Pearson Education, Boston, pp 77–89Google Scholar
- Smith MB (2005) CBHOs: improving health through community development. In: Smith MB, Graham YJ, Guttmacher S (eds) Community-based health organizations: advocating for improved health. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
- Viswanath K (2006) Public communications and its role in reducing and eliminating health disparities. In: Thomson GE, Mitchell F, Williams MB (eds) Examining the health disparities research plan of the National Institutes of Health: unfinished business. Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC, pp 215–253Google Scholar
- Viswanath K, Finnegan JR (2002) Community health campaigns and secular trends: insights from the Minnesota Heart Health Program and community trials in heart disease prevention. In: Hornik R (ed) Public health communication: evidence for behavior change. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York, pp 289–312Google Scholar