OBJECTIVE: Many behavior change programs are delivered in group settings to manage implementation costs and to foster support and interactions among group members in order to facilitate behavior change. Understanding the group dynamics that evolve in group settings (e.g., weight management, Alcoholics Anonymous) is important, yet rarely measured. This article examined the relationship between social network ties and group cohesion in a group-based intervention to prevent obesity in children. METHOD: The data reported are process measures from an ongoing community-based randomized controlled trial. A total of 305 parents with a child (3-6 years) at risk of developing obesity were assigned to an intervention that taught parents healthy lifestyles. Parents met weekly for 12 weeks in small consistent groups. Two measures were collected at Weeks 3 and 6: a social network survey (people in the group with whom one discusses healthy lifestyles) and the validated Perceived Cohesion Scale. We used lagged random and fixed effects regression models to analyze the data. RESULTS:Cohesion increased from 6.51 to 6.71 (t= 4.4,p< .01). Network nominations tended to increase over the 3-week period in each network. In the combined discussion and advice network, the number of nominations increased from 1.76 to 1.95 (z= 2.59,p< .01). Cohesion at Week 3 was the strongest predictor of cohesion at Week 6 (b= 0.55,p< .01). Number of new network nominations at Week 6 was positively related to cohesion at Week 6 (b= 0.06,p< .01). In sum, being able to name new network contacts was associated with feelings of cohesion. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to demonstrate how network changes affect perceived group cohesion within a behavioral intervention. Given that many behavioral interventions occur in group settings, intentionally building new social networks could be promising to augment desired outcomes.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Many behavior change programs are delivered in group settings to manage implementation costs and to foster support and interactions among group members in order to facilitate behavior change. Understanding the group dynamics that evolve in group settings (e.g., weight management, Alcoholics Anonymous) is important, yet rarely measured. This article examined the relationship between social network ties and group cohesion in a group-based intervention to prevent obesity in children. METHOD: The data reported are process measures from an ongoing community-based randomized controlled trial. A total of 305 parents with a child (3-6 years) at risk of developing obesity were assigned to an intervention that taught parents healthy lifestyles. Parents met weekly for 12 weeks in small consistent groups. Two measures were collected at Weeks 3 and 6: a social network survey (people in the group with whom one discusses healthy lifestyles) and the validated Perceived Cohesion Scale. We used lagged random and fixed effects regression models to analyze the data. RESULTS: Cohesion increased from 6.51 to 6.71 (t= 4.4,p< .01). Network nominations tended to increase over the 3-week period in each network. In the combined discussion and advice network, the number of nominations increased from 1.76 to 1.95 (z= 2.59,p< .01). Cohesion at Week 3 was the strongest predictor of cohesion at Week 6 (b= 0.55,p< .01). Number of new network nominations at Week 6 was positively related to cohesion at Week 6 (b= 0.06,p< .01). In sum, being able to name new network contacts was associated with feelings of cohesion. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to demonstrate how network changes affect perceived group cohesion within a behavioral intervention. Given that many behavioral interventions occur in group settings, intentionally building new social networks could be promising to augment desired outcomes.
Authors: Gerd Flodgren; Elena Parmelli; Gaby Doumit; Melina Gattellari; Mary Ann O'Brien; Jeremy Grimshaw; Martin P Eccles Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2011-08-10
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Hee-Sung Shin; Thomas W Valente; Nathaniel R Riggs; Jimi Huh; Donna Spruijt-Metz; Chih-Ping Chou; Mary Ann Pentz Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: J A Kelly; J S St Lawrence; Y E Diaz; L Y Stevenson; A C Hauth; T L Brasfield; S C Kalichman; J E Smith; M E Andrew Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1991-02 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: David A Shoham; Liping Tong; Peter J Lamberson; Amy H Auchincloss; Jun Zhang; Lara Dugas; Jay S Kaufman; Richard S Cooper; Amy Luke Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-06-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Bryan C Batch; Jamy D Ard; William M Vollmer; Kristine Funk; Lawrence J Appel; Victor J Stevens; Carmen Samuel-Hodge; Catherine M Loria; Jack F Hollis; Laura P Svetkey Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Rajesh Vedanthan; Jemima H Kamano; Hana Lee; Benjamin Andama; Gerald S Bloomfield; Allison K DeLong; David Edelman; Eric A Finkelstein; Joseph W Hogan; Carol R Horowitz; Simon Manyara; Diana Menya; Violet Naanyu; Sonak D Pastakia; Thomas W Valente; Cleophas C Wanyonyi; Valentin Fuster Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Molly E Waring; Brooke A Libby; Tiffany A Moore Simas; Madison L Bracken; Jessica L Bibeau; Valeria Herrera; Justin Wang; Sherry L Pagoto Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2019-11-28
Authors: Reza Yousefi Nooraie; Keith Warren; Lisa A Juckett; Qiuchang A Cao; Alicia C Bunger; Michele A Patak-Pietrafesa Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-06-25 Impact factor: 3.240