↓ Skip to main content

Partnership capacity for community health improvement plan implementation: findings from a social network analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Partnership capacity for community health improvement plan implementation: findings from a social network analysis
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3194-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Mac McCullough, Eileen Eisen-Cohen, S. Bianca Salas

Abstract

Many health departments collaborate with community organizations on community health improvement processes. While a number of resources exist to plan and implement a community health improvement plan (CHIP), little empirical evidence exists on how to leverage and expand partnerships when implementing a CHIP. The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics of the network involved in implementing the CHIP in one large community. The aims of this analysis are to: 1) identify essential network partners (and thereby highlight potential network gaps), 2) gauge current levels of partner involvement, 3) understand and effectively leverage network resources, and 4) enable a data-driven approach for future collaborative network improvements. We collected primary data via survey from n = 41 organizations involved in the Health Improvement Partnership of Maricopa County (HIPMC), in Arizona. Using the previously validated Program to Analyze, Record, and Track Networks to Enhance Relationships (PARTNER) tool, organizations provided information on existing ties with other coalition members, including frequency and depth of partnership and eight categories of perceived value/trust of each current partner organization. The coalition's overall network had a density score of 30 %, degree centralization score of 73 %, and trust score of 81 %. Network maps are presented to identify existing relationships between HIPMC members according to partnership frequency and intensity, duration of involvement in the coalition, and self-reported contributions to the coalition. Overall, number of ties and other partnership measures were positively correlated with an organization's perceived value and trustworthiness as rated by other coalition members. Our study presents a novel use of social network analysis methods to evaluate the coalition of organizations involved in implementing a CHIP in an urban community. The large coalition had relatively low network density but high degree centralization-meaning key organizations link organizations otherwise not tightly partnering. Coalition members rated each other highly on trust, a positive sign for future partnership development efforts. Examination of network maps reveal key organizations that can be targeted for future partnership facilitation and expansion. Future network data collection will enable exploration of longitudinal trends and exploration of network characteristics versus health behavior, status, and outcome changes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 58 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Student > Master 6 10%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 15 25%
Unknown 16 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 12 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 12%
Psychology 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 18 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 February 2019.
All research outputs
#6,758,642
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,048
of 14,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,803
of 354,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#171
of 345 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,922 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 354,681 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 345 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.