Drafted: Apr 7, 2018, Updated April 20th, 2019
We want to map and quantify the nature and extent of practice-level relationship networks in health promotion teams in each LHD.
What do we mean? Every relationship you have at work – like who you go to to solve a problem with software, who you plan your activities with, who you go to to get some background information about an organisation or a school – are relationships that can counted and quantified. Depending on your role, there may be lots of people on hand to help you get you work done. But for others, the reality may be more sparse. This relationship infrastructure is part of local capacity in health promotion. But up until now it’s never been made visible and counted. We think once it’s made visible, it will be easier to start a conversation about how LHDs could be better resourced to preserve and extend their practice networks. It’s part of the machinery of program delivery that needs appreciation and looking after.
How do you make it visible? Not by revealing names or places, that’s for sure. As with all our research, we will maintain privacy and anonymity. We will report on structural scores and differences across the state. Using network diagrams and summary statistics. For example, below are some hypothetical data from two teams in answer to the question “Who would you go to for help on (some particular thing)?” The dots are the people. The lines are the relationships.
In Team A there is a newcomer, who can’t nominate anyone they’d ask. Then there are 2 groups of 3. Then there is one larger, possibly more established group, who have interconnections.
Team A: hypothetical help-seeking network
But compare them to Team B, where everyone is interconnected. The network analysis shows that it would probably be easier to diffuse new information across Team B than Team A.
Team B: hypothetical help-seeking network
Why does that matter? Because it’s harder to get new information across in one place than another and that’s possibly not being recognised. To get work done people have to make the connections and maintain them. That takes time. That time and effort needs understanding and support. It may, for example, take longer for Team A to meet performance targets.
So, in future, perhaps, instead of getting funds to scale up programs across the state simply according to the size and makeup of the population, state-level funders might also adjust the timetable -or even perhaps the flow of funds - to help create and maintain the local level infrastructure (like these practice-level networks). But only if we can show that differences exist and that they might matter. That’s what we are exploring – with your help if you agree.
How else are people using social networks in health promotion? Lots of ways. Penny Hawe, the Lead Investigator of this project, has used social network analysis among teachers at schools to show how whole-school health promotion projects build more cohesive, socially inclusive workplaces for teachers. She’s also used it to track friendship networks among kids in schools and how this relates to kids’ physical activity levels. It‘s also common to use this method to track inter-organisational collaboration in health promotion.
But it’s entirely new to be doing social network analysis of health promotion teams. We piloted the method in one LHD already. We got some help to refine our questions and method. Now we are ready to launch a 10 minute online survey across the state.
How do I get involved? You’ll be invited to take part by email invitation. Participation is entirely voluntary. Confidentiality is assured. But this is history-making, so we do hope you’ll agree to take part. It is part of a commitment to make health promotion more visible, recognised and more highly valued. We think practice-level relationship mapping is another step in that process.
Like to know more? Email Penny at Penny.Hawe@sydney.edu.au