Community partnerships in healthy eating and lifestyle promotion: A network analysis

Abstract

Promoting healthy eating and lifestyles among populations with limited resources is a complex undertaking that often requires strong partnerships between various agencies. In local communities, these agencies are typically located in different areas, serve diverse subgroups, and operate distinct programs, limiting their communication and interactions with each other. This study assessed the network of agencies in local communities that promote healthy eating and lifestyles among populations with limited resources. Network surveys were administered in 2016 among 89 agencies located in 4 rural counties in Michigan that served limited-resource audiences. The agencies were categorized into 8 types: K-12 schools, early childhood centers, emergency food providers, health-related agencies, social resource centers, low-income/subsidized housing complexes, continuing education organizations, and others. Network analysis was conducted to examine 4 network structures—communication, funding, cooperation, and collaboration networks between agencies within each county. Agencies had a moderate level of cooperation, but were only loosely connected in the other 3 networks, indicated by low network density. Agencies in a network were decentralized rather than centralized around a few influential agencies, indicated by low centralization. There was evidence regarding homophily in a network, indicated by some significant correlations within agencies of the same type. Agencies connected in any one network were considerably more likely to be connected in all the other networks as well. In conclusion, promoting healthy eating and lifestyles among populations with limited resources warrants strong partnership between agencies in communities. Network analysis serves as a useful tool to evaluate community partnerships and facilitate coalition building.

Understanding the Development, Evaluation, and Sustainability of Community Health Networks Using Social Network Analysis: A Scoping Review

“…In 13 studies, networks were compared (e.g.,, partner strength) by geographic location (rural vs urban), funding, and population served. 106-116 Findings demonstrated that partnership strength including collaboration was lower in rural locations and low-resource settings or for those targeting different ethnic populations. Partnership strength was higher in networks with funding for partnership development.…”

Interorganizational Networks in Physical Activity Promotion: A Systematic Review

“…This review also revealed that homophily (i.e., the tendency of organizations to collaborate with other organizations in the same field) seems to be a widespread mechanism among PA promoting networks [ 59 , 60 , 64 , 72 ]. In the field of PA promotion, it seems natural that organizations of the same type are more strongly connected because of the similar nature of work and the comparable organizational settings [ 29 , 73 ]. Cooperation with actors belonging to the same type could also be observed in networks of healthy lifestyle promotion [ 17 , 69 , 74 ]; this circumstance could be avoided, for example, by stringent leadership and coalition-promoting behavior, e.g., by state governments [ 69 ].…”

A systematic review of food pantry-based interventions in the USA

“…Resource and cost sharing based on partnerships can also play an important role in intervention sustainability. However, two recent studies assessed the network of agencies in local communities that promote healthy eating among populations with limited resources and found that those agencies were only loosely connected (46,47) . The current review serves as the first attempt to synthesize scientific evidence regarding food pantry-based interventions on participants' diet-related outcomes in the USA.…”