OBJECTIVE: Violence in post-conflict Guatemala has serious public health consequences for the population. The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between violence and social capital. METHODS: Data from a cross-sectional victimization survey conducted in 2008 - 2010 in Guatemala were analyzed. Two-stage proportionate sampling was used in the survey. Households (n = 1 300) were randomly sampled within a random sample of communities (n = 118) in five administrative departments. The survey collected information on the six-month violence exposure of 6 335 individuals. Social capital was measured at the household level using the short version of the Adapted Social Capital Tool (SASCAT). The odds ratio for household violence exposure was estimated using multiple logistic regression. Community-level data from the latest national census were included as explanatory factors at the community level. Income, ethnicity, and social capital were included at the household level. Data were analyzed using SPSS 18.0. RESULTS: In total, 2.7% of individuals and 11.7% of households had been exposed to violence within the past six months. The multivariate analysis showed that 1) structural social capital (in this case, the level of participation in social networks and civil society) was a risk factor for violence and 2) cognitive social capital (measured as trust, norms, and sense of belonging) was a protective factor for violence. CONCLUSIONS: The opposite direction of the association between violence and structural and cognitive social capital challenges the use of social capital as a unified concept. If this finding is corroborated by other studies, structural and cognitive social capital will have to be treated as two distinctly different concepts.
OBJECTIVE: Violence in post-conflict Guatemala has serious public health consequences for the population. The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between violence and social capital. METHODS: Data from a cross-sectional victimization survey conducted in 2008 - 2010 in Guatemala were analyzed. Two-stage proportionate sampling was used in the survey. Households (n = 1 300) were randomly sampled within a random sample of communities (n = 118) in five administrative departments. The survey collected information on the six-month violence exposure of 6 335 individuals. Social capital was measured at the household level using the short version of the Adapted Social Capital Tool (SASCAT). The odds ratio for household violence exposure was estimated using multiple logistic regression. Community-level data from the latest national census were included as explanatory factors at the community level. Income, ethnicity, and social capital were included at the household level. Data were analyzed using SPSS 18.0. RESULTS: In total, 2.7% of individuals and 11.7% of households had been exposed to violence within the past six months. The multivariate analysis showed that 1) structural social capital (in this case, the level of participation in social networks and civil society) was a risk factor for violence and 2) cognitive social capital (measured as trust, norms, and sense of belonging) was a protective factor for violence. CONCLUSIONS: The opposite direction of the association between violence and structural and cognitive social capital challenges the use of social capital as a unified concept. If this finding is corroborated by other studies, structural and cognitive social capital will have to be treated as two distinctly different concepts.
Authors: Nete Sloth Hansen-Nord; Finn Kjaerulf; Juan Almendarez; Victor Morales Rodas; Julio Castro Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 3.380