Local collaborations for physical activity promotion: a network analysis

Abstract

This study aims to describe a local network for physical activity promotion and identify factors associated to collaboration or partnership ties between its actors. The study was carried out in a district of São Paulo, Brazil. Thirty-two actors responsible for policies, programs, and initiatives to promote physical activity within the district were interviewed from June to December 2012. Interviews included information about the actors’ attributes and their relationships with the other actors. Network analysis techniques were used to describe and analyze the structure of the network. Thirty-two actors maintained 179 relationships among themselves (density = 0.18), of which 46% were reciprocal. Four in 10 relationships did not extend beyond information exchange. Forty-six relationships were classified as collaborations or partnerships (density = 0.09), of which 40% were concentrated on one actor of the public sector. To perceive institutional structure and bureaucracy as limiting factors to networking has been positively associated with new collaboration or partnership ties (OR = 2.37; 95%CI: 1.2-5.50). Understanding the structure of the network may empower the actors and foster self-management, facilitating the identification and decision, in a collaborative way, in which new relationships may have greater impact in the physical activity promotion within the district.

Interorganizational Networks in Physical Activity Promotion: A Systematic Review

“…Seven studies considered (degree-/betweenness) centralization. Five networks showed a decentralized structure, i.e., a low to moderate range [ 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 65 ], whereas two networks showed a high degree of centralization, indicating a few powerful organizations influencing the network [ 59 , 66 ].…”

“…At the subgraph level, organizations were found to have a positive tendency for transitivity; that is, organizations tended to form closed triads with other network members, and thus they cooperate in small groups rather than at the individual level [ 58 , 64 , 66 ]. In another network, educational organizations displayed closed triangles concerning fundraising [ 65 ].…”

“…This could also be observed in health-promoting networks with no specific focus on PA [ 68 , 69 ]. In addition, in a local network, it could be shown that despite the low density in the community network, it was not intended to promote densification of relationships since any actor could reach almost another within the network [ 66 ].…”

“…Another aspect of our review dealt with network centralization. The investigated networks of Sao Paulo [ 66 ] and Colombia [ 59 ] showed a relatively high centralization score. A possible explanation could be that the network of Sao Paulo was implemented by the local government, with one actor from the public sector claiming 40% of the collaboration and partnership ties [ 66 ].…”

BRICS nations and the opportunities for community physical activity interventions

“…Most of the BRICS countries have adopted goals consistent with the World Health Organization Global Action Plan for the Prevention of Non-communicable Diseases or have developed consensus guidelines 19, 20, 21, 22. Although much of the published scientific work has focused on epidemiology of the populations and the development of valid and culturally relevant measurement tools, there are several examples of effective community approaches designed to improve PA in these countries, with more initiatives in progress (e.g., Matsudo, 23 Baker et al, 24 and Andrade et al 25 ).…”