Do Bonding, Bridging, and Linking Social Capital Affect Preventable Hospitalizations?

Derose, Kathryn Pitkin

doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2008.00856.x

Cited by 31 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent literature stresses the potential role of bonding, bridging and linking social capital [5,30,31]. However, this is not confirmed by the findings of this study: this 27-item model is weaker in explaining health than the original Social Network Index, which poses a similar burden on respondents with its 23 questions.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

“…The added dimension, linking social capital, is defined as "norms of respect and networks of trusting relationships between people who are interacting across explicit, formal or institutionalized power or authority gradients in society" [10]. Although some researchers have criticised this theoretical development [27][28][29], others underline the added value that this conceptual elaboration could offer [30]. It is believed that the distinction between bonding, bridging and linking social capital could contribute to more clear and detailed evidence on the relationship between social capital and health [5] and thus to the public health research [12,31].…”

Section: Distinction Between Bonding Bridging and Linking Social Capmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Corresponding to the procedure to determine the [30], measures for bonding, bridging and linking social capital are calculated based on the sociodemographic characteristics of the respondent's network members. Bonding social capital takes place between people with similar socio-demographic backgrounds [10].…”

Section: Model 3: Expanded Social Network Indexmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Measuring the immeasurable? Operationalising social capital in health research

Vyncke

Peersman²,

Maeseneer³

et al. 2012

Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the last decennia, social capital has been a popular topic in social sciences. However, the concept is often used as a "catch all" for divers social characteristics. Consensus on how the concept should be measured is lacking. This keeps health researchers from drawing firm conclusions on the influence of social capital on health and hampers the decision on which social capital indicators to use in health research. This study compares five ways to operationalise social capital (generalized trust, a social network index, an expanded social network index, bonding, bridging and linking social capital and a multidimensional social capital index) in their ability to explain self-rated health and pain. To evaluate the models' capacity to explain health, two logistic regression models were built, resulting in Nagelkerke R2 measures. Data were collected in a cross-sectional study in eight neighbourhoods in the region of Ghent (Belgium) by randomly sampling 50 adult inhabitants per neighbourhood. Findings show that the explanation of the observed variance in health by the studied social capital models ranges from 1.9% to 23.1%, but is more pronounced for self-rated health than for pain. The multidimensional social capital index explains most of the variance in health, but poses an important strain on the respondents due to a large number of surveyquestions. With some prudence, we presume that the explanatory added value of the more extended social capital models is rather limited from a practical point of view as the addition in explained variance of the other models seems not in relation to the number of questions needed. Researchers should weigh up the pros and cons of different manners to measure social capital carefully, taking the goals and focus of their study into account.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

Section: Distinction Between Bonding Bridging and Linking Social Capmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring the immeasurable? Operationalising social capital in health research

Vyncke

Peersman²,

Maeseneer³

et al. 2012

Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This apparently contradictory finding could be explained by the fact that more diverse counties have increased bridging social capital (cross-cutting ties that cross racial-ethnic barriers). Greater potential for interracial and interethnic interaction appears to be associated with fewer ACSHs for pediatric populations, but not for the adult or non-elderly populations [38].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preventable Hospitalizations: Does Rurality or Non-Physician Clinician Supply Matter?

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the relationship between rurality as well as the proportion of non-physician clinicians and county rates of ambulatory care sensitive hospitalizations (ACSHs) for pediatric, adult and elderly populations in Nebraska. The study design was a cross-sectional observational study of county level factors that affect the county level rates of ACSHs using Poisson regression models. Rural (non-metro) counties have significantly higher ACSHs for both pediatric and adult population, but not for the elderly. Frontier counties have significantly higher adult ACSHs. The proportion of primary care providers who are non-physician clinicians does not have a significant association with ACSHs for any of the age groups. The results indicate that rurality may have a greater impact on pediatric and adult ACSHs and the proportion of NPCs in the primary care provider workforce does not significantly impact ACSH rates.

show abstract

“…individuals and groups Derose (2008) To examine the relationship between social capital and preventable hospitalizations (PHs).…”

Section: Participation In Clubsmentioning

confidence: 99%