Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Hollings Cancer Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, 68 President Street, Suite BE103, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2016 Dec;3(4):667-675. doi: 10.1007/s40615-015-0185-9. Epub 2015 Dec 10.
The premise of community advocacy is to empower residents by increasing their capacity to address and change neighborhood and structural factors that contribute to adverse health outcomes. An underlying assumption is that community residents will advocate for public policy and other changes. However, limited empirical evidence exists on community residents' perceived ability to advocate for neighborhood change. In this study, we characterized perceived neighborhood control and efficacy for neighborhood change and evaluated independent associations between efficacy and control beliefs and sociodemographic factors, community involvement, and perceptions of social environment.
Cross-sectional data from 488 African American adults were analyzed to describe efficacy and control beliefs and to characterize bivariate associations between these beliefs and sociodemographic factors, social environment, and community involvement variables. Variables with significant relationships (p < 0.10) were included in a multivariate logistic regression model to identify factors having significant independent associations with efficacy and control beliefs.
Overall, beliefs about neighborhood control and confidence were varied, yet approximately half of residents (49 and 55 %, respectively) reported having a little control over things that happen in their neighborhood and a little confidence in their ability to change things where they live. The likelihood of reporting confidence to make neighborhood improvements increased with greater collective efficacy (OR = 1.78, 95 % CI = 1.19-1.31, p = 0.002). In addition, participants who were involved in a community organization were more likely to report confidence to improve their neighborhood (OR = 2.03, 95 % CI = 1.21-3.42, p = 0.01).
Efforts are needed to improve residents' ability to become positive agents of change in their community. Creating a research infrastructure within academic community partnerships that focus on strengthening advocacy and public policy may improve resident's efficacy and ability to seek and encourage neighborhood change.
社区宣传的前提是通过增强居民解决和改变导致不良健康结果的邻里和结构性因素的能力来赋予居民权力。一个基本假设是,社区居民将倡导公共政策和其他变革。然而,关于社区居民对邻里变革的感知能力的实证证据有限。在这项研究中,我们描述了感知邻里控制和实施邻里变革的效力,并评估了效力和控制信念与社会人口因素、社区参与和社会环境感知之间的独立关联。
对 488 名非裔美国成年人的横断面数据进行分析,以描述效力和控制信念,并描述这些信念与社会人口因素、社会环境和社区参与变量之间的二元关联。具有显著关系的变量(p<0.10)被纳入多元逻辑回归模型,以确定与效力和控制信念具有显著独立关联的因素。
总体而言,对邻里控制和信心的信念是多种多样的,但大约有一半的居民(分别为 49%和 55%)表示对邻里发生的事情几乎没有控制,对自己改变居住环境的能力几乎没有信心。报告有信心进行邻里改善的可能性随着集体效力的增加而增加(OR=1.78,95%CI=1.19-1.31,p=0.002)。此外,参与社区组织的参与者更有可能报告有信心改善他们的邻里(OR=2.03,95%CI=1.21-3.42,p=0.01)。
需要努力提高居民在社区中成为积极变革推动者的能力。在关注加强宣传和公共政策的学术社区伙伴关系中建立研究基础设施,可能会提高居民的效力和寻求并鼓励邻里变革的能力。