Community networks of sport and physical activity promotion: an analysis of structural properties and conditions of cooperation

Abstract

Background: The importance of intersectoral cooperation networks among community organizations located in people’s immediate environments in addressing population health problems such as physical inactivity has come into focus in recent years. To date, there is limited evidence on how and why such networks emerge. Therefore, the aims of this study were (a) to analyze the structural properties and (b) to identify the conditions of cooperation in interorganizational community networks of sport and physical activity promotion. Methods: Survey data on cooperative relationships and organizational attributes of sports and physical activity providers as well as sports administrating organizations in two community networks located in urban districts in southern Germany were collected (Network I: n = 133 organizations; Network II: n = 50 organizations). Two quantitative descriptive procedures – network analysis and stochastic analyses of network modeling (exponential random graphs) – were applied. Results: Similar structures and conditions of cooperation were found in the networks (e.g. low density, centralization). The community sports administrations had the most central positions in both networks. Exponential random graph modeling showed that cooperation took place more frequently in triangular structures (closure effect) and revolved around a few central actors (preferential attachment effect). Organizations from different sectors cooperated more often than organizations from the same sector (heterophily effect). Conclusion: The study provided valid and robust findings on significant mechanisms and conditions of interorganizational cooperation in community networks focused on sport and physical activity promotion. Based on the results, implications for the development and most efficient governance of these networks can be derived.

An empirical study on social network analysis for small residential communities in Gangwon State, South Korea

“…Lastly, Wolbring et al provide a detailed analysis of community sports networks, which we found analogous to our study’s focus on health promotion networks. Their analysis of structural properties and cooperation conditions within networks offers valuable parallels to our findings, where the structural aspects of networks (e.g., centrality, tie formation) were crucial in mediating health outcomes 31 . By drawing on these parallels, we further substantiate our model of network-driven health promotion.…”

External relationships as implementation determinants in community-engaged, equity-focused COVID-19 vaccination events

“…Extant implementation research frameworks have also predominantly focused on relationships among similar or peer organizations (e.g., healthcare organizations, social services providers) ( 5 , 14 ). Most published studies assessing external relationships primarily focus on links among peer organizations, such as formal implementation networks ( 17 ), quality improvement collaboratives ( 18 ), or organizations providing similar client services ( 19 – 21 ). The updated definition of the “partnerships and connections” construct in CFIR 2.0 helps expand the scope of external relationships to include collaboratives, professional societies, referral networks, community-academic partnerships, advocacy groups, and technical assistance organizations ( 4 ).…”

Analyzing mechanisms of interdisciplinary cooperation in promoting students’ health at university

“…In the past, various intra- and interorganizational public health networks were examined using social network analysis to visualize structural characteristics and cooperation processes, such as active living [ 54 – 56 ], cancer support [ 57 , 58 ], children’s health initiatives [ 59 , 60 ], community care [ 61 – 63 ], elderly care [ 64 – 66 ], HIV/AIDS service [ 67 ], injury prevention and control [ 68 ], mental health services [ 69 – 72 ], physical activity promotion [ 73 – 75 ], prevention of diabetes [ 76 ], tobacco control [ 77 – 80 ], and women’s health [ 81 , 82 ]. These public health networks differ in many ways from the network at hand, because they address the specific health needs and problems of other populations, have a different health-related focus and mission, geographic coverage, types of stakeholders, ways in which network members cooperate, availability and distribution of resources and funding, and political, cultural, and social context.…”