Netzwerkanalyse

Metz, Thomas

doi:10.1007/978-3-658-17189-6_8

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 93 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Subsequently, the stakeholder network’s structure can be explored using network analysis. Network analysis serves as a suitable tool to gain insights into the complex structural and processual characteristics of stakeholder networks within community-based interventions [ 17 ] and can assist in developing an understanding of the roles that stakeholders play in the outcomes of a network. Suitable measures for assessing network characteristics are density and centrality, while the interaction of actors is surveyed in terms of frequency and intensity of contact [ 18 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Network Analysis for a Community-Based School- and Family-Based Obesity Prevention Program

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rising childhood obesity with its detrimental health consequences poses a challenge to the health care system. Community-based, multi-setting interventions with the participatory involvement of relevant stakeholders are emerging as promising. To gain insights into the structural and processual characteristics of stakeholder networks, conducting a network analysis (NA) is advisable. Within the program “Family+—Healthy Living Together in Families and Schools”, a network analysis was conducted in two rural model regions and one urban model region. Relevant stakeholders were identified in 2020–2021 through expert interviews and interviewed by telephone to elicit key variables such as frequency of contact and intensity of collaboration. Throughout the NA, characteristics such as density, centrality, and connectedness were analyzed and are presented graphically. Due to the differences in the number of inhabitants and the rural or urban structure of the model regions, the three networks (network#1, network#2, and network#3) included 20, 14, and 12 stakeholders, respectively. All networks had similar densities (network#1, 48%; network#2, 52%; network#3, 42%), whereas the degree centrality of network#1 (0.57) and network#3 (0.58) was one-third higher compared with network#2 (0.39). All three networks differed in the distribution of stakeholders in terms of field of expertise and structural orientation. On average, stakeholders exchanged information quarterly and were connected on an informal level. Based on the results of the NA, it appears to be useful to initialize a community health facilitator to involve relevant stakeholders from the education, sports, and health systems in projects and to strive for the goal of sustainable health promotion, regardless of the rural or urban structure of the region. Participatory involvement of relevant stakeholders can have a positive influence on the effective dissemination of information and networking with other stakeholders.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%