Search

Objective: This paper seeks to compare the relationships between social capital and health for rural and urban residents of South Australia. Methods: Using data from a South Australian telephone survey of 2,013 respondents (1,402 urban and 611 rural), separate path analyses for the rural and urban samples were used to compare the relationships between six social capital measures, six demographic variables, and mental and physical health (measured by the SF-12). Results: Higher levels of networks, civic participation and cohesion were reported in rural areas. Education and income were consistently linked with social capital variables for both rural and urban participants, with those on higher incomes and with higher educational achievement having higher levels of social capital. However, there were also differences between the rural and urban groups in some of the other predictors of social capital variables. Mental health was better among rural participants, but there was no significant difference for physical health. Social capital was associated with good mental health for both urban and rural participants, but with physical health only for urban participants. Higher levels of social capital were significantly associated with better mental health for both urban and rural participants, but with better physical health only for urban participants. Conclusions and implications: The study found that social capital and its relationship to health differed for participants in rural and urban areas, and that there were also differences between the areas in associations with socioeconomic variables. Policies aiming to strengthen social capital in order to promote health need to be designed for specific settings and particular communities within these. Key words: social capital; urban; rural

This paper considers the health implications of access to social capital (SC) using data from a survey of households in two suburbs in Adelaide, Australia. SC was conceptualised as comprising 'infrastructure'--the networks and values that facilitate access to resources; and 'resources'--the resources available through this infrastructure. Questionnaires were delivered to all households in the area, asking the adult with the next birthday to complete it. In all, 530 (50%) were returned. A partial least-squares path analysis was undertaken using demographic, SC and health latent variables, and a measure of perceived relative advantage. Three infrastructure (values, formal networks and informal networks) and four resource (help, acceptance by neighbours, civic activities and feelings of control) variables were considered. Mental and physical health were measured using the SF-12. The values variable was associated with all the resource variables, the informal networks variable was related to help, and the formal networks variable was associated with civic actions. There were significant sociodemographic differences in a number of the infrastructure and resource variables, as well as mental and physical health. Those who were better off materially also had greater access to elements of SC, and reported better health. Values, informal networks, help, and control were all directly or indirectly positively associated with better mental health. No SC variables were associated with physical health. Perceived relative advantage was positively associated with a number of SC variables and also mental and physical health. The implications for health promotion are discussed. Keywords: Social capital; Health inequities; Networks; Case study; Path analysis; Australia

Social capital has been linked to health outcomes, though there are some inconsistencies in the research and the link is dependent on the measures of social capital and health used. In this paper, we argue that social capital is multifaceted and its relationship with health is complex. We explore the relationship between a number of elements of neighbourhood life and neighbourhood-based social capital, and health, using both qualitative and quantitative methods. The paper reports on a study of the Western suburbs of Adelaide and the analysis of 2400 questionnaires and 40 in-depth interviews. A partial least-square path analysis was undertaken with the questionnaire data. It considered the impact of perceptions of the physical environment, neighbourhood connections, neighbourhood trust, reciprocity, perceived safety and local civic action, and a number of demographic variables, on physical and mental health as measured by the SF-12. Of the neighbourhood-related variables, only perceived neighbourhood safety was related to physical health, with neighbourhood safety and neighbourhood connections related to mental health. Of the demographic variables, higher-income level and educational achievement were related to better physical and mental health. In addition, physical health was lower and mental health higher within older age groups. The inter-relationships between the neighbourhood variables and demographic differences in experience of neighbourhood were also examined. The thematic analysis of the interviews linked a number of social aspects of neighbourhood, the physical neighbourhood environment, perceptions of safety, civic activities and availability of local services, to health outcomes. The paper concludes that there is a need for more complex measures of social capital and that socioeconomic factors are of relatively greater importance in determining health. 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Social capital; Health inequities; Neighbourhood; Location; Physical environment; Path analysis; Australia

Abstract Background This paper reports on a qualitative study of lay knowledge about health inequalities and solutions to address them. Social determinants of health are responsible for a large proportion of health inequalities (unequal levels of health status) and inequities (unfair access to health services and resources) within and between countries. Despite an expanding evidence base supporting action on social determinants, understanding of the impact of these determinants is not widespread and political will appears to be lacking. A small but growing body of research has explored how ordinary people theorise health inequalities and the implications for taking action. The findings are variable, however, in terms of an emphasis on structure versus individual agency and the relationship between being 'at risk' and acceptance of social/structural explanations. Methods This paper draws on findings from a qualitative study conducted in Adelaide, South Australia, to examine these questions. The study was an integral part of mixed-methods research on the links between urban location, social capital and health. It comprised 80 in-depth interviews with residents in four locations with contrasting socio-economic status. The respondents were asked about the cause of inequalities and actions that could be taken by governments to address them. Results Although generally willing to discuss health inequalities, many study participants tended to explain the latter in terms of individual behaviours and attitudes rather than social/structural conditions. Moreover, those who identified social/structural causes tended to emphasise individualized factors when describing typical pathways to health outcomes. This pattern appeared largely independent of participants' own experience of advantage or disadvantage, and was reinforced in discussion of strategies to address health inequalities. Conclusions Despite the explicit emphasis on social/structural issues expressed in the study focus and framing of the research questions, participants did not display a high level of knowledge about the nature and causes of place-based health inequalities. By extending the scope of lay theorizing to include a focus on solutions, this study offers additional insights for public health. Specifically it suggests that a popular constituency for action on the social determinants of health is unlikely to eventuate from the current popular understandings of possible policy levers.

Marital status and mental health are indirectly related to each other. Social capital is a part of health and it is explained that married people have good mental health unlike those unmarried.