| Literature DB >> 26060778 |
Zhichao Li1, Yao Chen1, Liming Suo1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, natural disasters and the accompanying health risks have become more frequent, and rehabilitation work has become an important part of government performance. On one hand, social networks play an important role in participants' therapeutic community participation and physical & mental recovery. On the other hand, therapeutic communities with widespread participation can also contribute to community recovery after disaster.Entities:
Keywords: Local government; Self-organization; Social network; Therapeutic community participation
Year: 2015 PMID: 26060778 PMCID: PMC4450016
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Public Health ISSN: 2251-6085 Impact factor: 1.429
Fig.1A theoretical framework for explaining the influence of social networks on therapeutic community participation
Factor analysis of therapeutic community participation (August 2013)
| Question items | factor of self-organized therapeutic community participation | factor of government-organized therapeutic community participation |
|---|---|---|
| 1. I always take part in government-organized therapeutic community activities. | .019 | |
| 2. I will encourage friends and relatives to participate in government-organized therapeutic community activities. | .114 | |
| 2. I should take the responsibilities and obligations to participate in government-organized therapeutic community activities. | .256 | |
| 4. I always take part in self-organized therapeutic community activities. | .871 | .119 |
| 5. I will encourage friends and relatives to participate in self-organized therapeutic community activities. | .941 | .087 |
| 6. I am really proud of participating in self-organization. % of Variance | .922 | .065 |
Variable Description
| Name | Means | Standard deviation | variable declaration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent variables | |||
| self-organized therapeutic community participation | 63.232 | (40.165) | Interval Scale, factor score by percentages |
| government-organized therapeutic community participation | 29.193 | (31.542) | Interval Scale, factor score by percentages |
| Size of instrumental relation network (size1) | 5.182 | (6.157) | Interval scale, number of net-involved members |
| Proportion of strong ties in instrumental relation networks (strong ties 1) | .742 | (.353) | Interval scale, percentage of “relatives and friends” in network, 0-1, “1”means all relatives and friends in network |
| Size of expressive relation network (size2) | 2.654 | (1.873) | Interval Scale, number of net-involved members |
| Proportion of strong ties in expressive relation network (strong ties2) | .787 | (.412) | Interval scale, percentage of “relatives and friends” in network, 0-1, “1”means all relatives and friends in network |
| Size of networks with local cadres (at and above the township-level) / (size3) | .752 | (1.866) | Interval Scale, number of net-involved members |
| Proportion of strong ties in network with local cadres (strong ties3) | .231 | (.412) | Interval Scale, percentage of “relatives and friends” in network, 0-1, “1”means all relatives and friends in network |
| Gender | .413 | (.512) | Dichotomous variable, 0=male, 1=female |
| Age | 48.123 | (16.592) | Interval Scale |
| Party | .043 | (.218) | Dichotomous variable, 0= non-party, 1=part |
| Education | 6.328 | (3.542) | Interval scale |
| Marital status | .782 | (.187) | Dichotomous variable, 0= unmarried, 1= married or divorced or widowed |
Results of hierarchical regression analysis for therapeutic community participation (Model 1 & Model 3, N=453)
| Variable | Model 1 Self-organized | Model 3 Government-organized |
|---|---|---|
| Intercept ( | 23.345**(2.221) | 21.439**(2.219) |
| Intercept ( | 4.479**(1.009) | 3.714**(0.927) |
| Means of community participation degree ( | 43.261*** | 45.564*** |
| time ( | 12.432** | 13.398** |
| level-1 | 213.691 | 209.593 |
| 1243.432 | 1266.653 | |
Result of hierarchical regression analysis for therapeutic community participation (Model 2 & Model 4, N=453)
| Variables | Model 2 Self-organized | Model 4 Government-organized |
|---|---|---|
| Gender ( | -1.452(3.876) | -0.945(1.492) |
| Age ( | 0.212(0.115) | 0.165(0.176) |
| Party ( | 0.935(2.872) | 0.683(1.754) |
| Education ( | 1.238(2.478) | 1.475*(0.577) |
| Marital status ( | 0.945(0.976) | 1.036(1.254) |
| Size of instrumental relation network ( | -1.974(2.946) | 1.652(1.542) |
| Proportion of strong ties in instrumental relation network ( | 1.398*(0.625) | 2.322*(0.862) |
| Size of expressive relation network ( | 3.512(4.585) | 1.832(1.656) |
| Proportion of strong ties in expressive relation network ( | 2.321**(0.387) | 2.456**(0.831) |
| Size of networks with local cadres (at and above the township-level) ( | -1.219**(0.524) | 4.654**(1.393) |
| Proportion of strong ties in network with local cadres (at and above the township-level) ( | -1.753**(0.652) | 1.842**(0.367) |
| Size of instrumental relation network ( | 0.158(0.381) | 0.287(0.367) |
| Proportion of strong ties in instrumental relation network ( | 1.276*(0.619) | 1.652*(0.634) |
| Size of expressive relation network ( | 0.212(0.215) | 0.432(0.521) |
| Proportion of strong ties in expressive relation network ( | 5.312*(1.231) | 4.734**(1.374) |
| Size of networks with local cadres (at and above the township-level) ( | 0.566(0.387) | 0.545(0.764) |
| Proportion of strong ties in network with local cadres (at and above the township-level) ( | -1.498**(0.512) | 2.631**(0.984) |