Implications of Network Structure on Public Health Collaboratives

Abstract

Interorganizational collaboration is an essential function of public health agencies. These partnerships form social networks that involve diverse types of partners and varying levels of interaction. Such collaborations are widely accepted and encouraged, yet very little comparative research exists on how public health partnerships develop and evolve, specifically in terms of how subsequent network structures are linked to outcomes. A systems science approach, that is, one that considers the interdependencies and nested features of networks, provides the appropriate methods to examine the complex nature of these networks. Applying Mays and Scutchfields's categorization of "structural signatures" (breadth, density, and centralization), this research examines how network structure influences the outcomes of public health collaboratives. Secondary data from the Program to Analyze, Record, and Track Networks to Enhance Relationships (www.partnertool.net) data set are analyzed. This data set consists of dyadic (N = 12,355), organizational (N = 2,486), and whole network (N = 99) data from public health collaborations around the United States. Network data are used to calculate structural signatures and weighted least squares regression is used to examine how network structures can predict selected intermediary outcomes (resource contributions, overall value and trust rankings, and outcomes) in public health collaboratives. Our findings suggest that network structure may have an influence on collaborative-related outcomes. The structural signature that had the most significant relationship to outcomes was density, with higher density indicating more positive outcomes. Also significant was the finding that more breadth creates new challenges such as difficulty in reaching consensus and creating ties with other members. However, assumptions that these structural components lead to improved outcomes for public health collaboratives may be slightly premature. Implications of these findings for research and practice are discussed.

Collaborative Performance as a Function of Network Members’ Perceptions of Success

“…More diversity may even require more centralized or hierarchical structures to reconcile the challenges of organizational differences and the desire to leverage a diversity of resources. This finding is confirmed in other research that concluded that more decentralized networks report a greater number of outcomes (Retrum et al, 2013). In that research, networks with less breadth appeared to have a higher number of resource contributions and lower agreement about the most important outcome in their work together.…”

“…Trust and value were calculated for each collaborative, based on three-item scales (see Table 1) developed specifically to measure trust and value within interorganizational networks (Varda, 2008). These measures have been tested for validity, and found to be both reliable and valid measures of trust and value (Retrum, Chapman, & Varda, 2013). Trust and value variables were calculated in this research by creating total trust scores and total value scores for each organization (averaging the relational scores, which ranged from 3 to 12) and then calculating mean scores at the whole network level.…”

Using Social Network Analysis to Assess Mentorship and Collaboration in a Public Health Network

“…Researchers have long argued for the increased use of systems science methodologies, among them SNA, as a way to examine emergent properties of systems such as collaborative networks — phenomena that are observed at the system level but cannot be causally linked to a specific individual component (26). However, these approaches remain underused (27). Future research may benefit from quantifying the benefits of network participation, assessing the relationship between level of involvement and benefits, and examining the relationship between network structure and outcomes (28).…”

Public Health, Mental Health and Primary Care Differences in Urban and Rural Counties in a System of Care for Children with Special Healthcare Needs

“…The majority of mean primary care partner scores on perceptions of the value of partnerships in rural and mixed geographic settings are considered below the benchmark as positive, in relation to over 500 comparable networks in the PARTNER tool dataset [14,15]. This may indicate that primary care partners in SOCs are not currently as valued as other mental health and public health partners in rural and mixed settings, giving way for better Network Characteristics.…”