Pharmaceutial Health Services Research Department, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H, Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Foundation Centrum '45, Arq Psychotrauma Expert Group, The Netherlands.
Soc Sci Med. 2018 Sep;212:203-218. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.07.022. Epub 2018 Jul 23.
Despite two decades of research on social capital and health, intervention studies remain scarce. We performed a systematic review on social capital interventions in public health and searched the Pubmed and PsychInfo databases. The majority of interventions we identified focused on individual level change (e.g. encouraging social participation), as opposed to community level change. We included 17 manuscripts in the systematic review. We categorized studies according to the role of social capital in the interventions (as the direct target of intervention, as a channel/mediator, or as a segmenting variable) as well as the levels of interventions (individual, community levels vs. multilevel ). We conclude that the majority of interventions sought to directly strengthen social capital to influence health outcomes. Our review reveals (i) a lack of studies that incorporate a multilevel perspective and (ii) an absence of consideration of specific groups that might selectively benefit from social capital interventions (segmentation). Future research is needed on both questions to provide a more nuanced picture of how social capital can be manipulated to affect health outcomes.
尽管社会资本与健康方面的研究已经开展了二十年，但干预研究仍然很少。我们对公共卫生领域的社会资本干预措施进行了系统评价，并检索了 Pubmed 和 PsychInfo 数据库。我们确定的大多数干预措施侧重于个体层面的变化（例如鼓励社会参与），而不是社区层面的变化。我们在系统评价中纳入了 17 篇论文。我们根据社会资本在干预措施中的作用（作为干预的直接目标、作为渠道/中介，或作为细分变量）以及干预措施的水平（个体、社区层面与多层次）对研究进行了分类。我们的结论是，大多数干预措施旨在直接加强社会资本以影响健康结果。我们的综述揭示了（i）缺乏纳入多层次视角的研究，以及（ii）没有考虑可能从社会资本干预中选择性受益的特定群体（细分）。未来需要对这两个问题进行研究，以更细致地了解如何操纵社会资本来影响健康结果。
