| Literature DB >> 31640592 |
Thijs van der Knaap1, Jan Smelik2, Floor de Jong3, Peter Spreeuwenberg4, Peter P Groenewegen5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands as well as in other countries citizens take initiatives to provide or maintain services in the area of care and welfare. Citizens' initiatives (CI's) are organisations some of which have a formal structure while others are informally connected groups of citizens, that are established by a group of citizens with the aim to increase the health and welfare within their local community and that are not focused on making a profit. Although CI's have been around since at least the 1970's little research has been done on the phenomenon, with most of it consisting of case studies or qualitative exploratory research. To fill part of this gap in knowledge, we have studied the geographical variation in the presence of CI's in the Netherlands and tried to explain this variation.Entities:
Keywords: Citizens’ initiatives; Ecological analysis; Geographical distribution; Social capital; Social cooperatives; The Netherlands
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31640592 PMCID: PMC6805657 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-7599-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1Shortest (linear) distance from each postal code area to a postal code area with a CI (2016). Map of the Netherlands including province boundaries. Postal code areas with a CI and shortest linear distance from each postal code area to a postal code area with a CI. Data for presence of active CI’s at 1 January 2016. Source: own production
Variances and intra-class correlations from a logistic multilevel analysis with dependent variable presence (1) or absence (0) of a citizen’s initiative in the empty model
| All postal code areas | Urban a | Semi-urban and intermediate | Semi-rural and rural | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variance municipality | 1.652* | 1.004* | 0.680* | 1.545* |
| Variance province | 1.598* | – | 0.559* | 2.641* |
| ICC municipality | 25% | 23% | 15% | 21% |
| ICC Province | 24% | – | 12% | 35% |
| N postal code areas | 4017 | 438 | 1472 | 2107 |
| N municipalities | 396 | 15 | 146 | 235 |
| N provinces | 12 | – | 12 | 12 |
aTwo-level model excluding province due to small number of provinces
*p < 0.05
Logistic multilevel analysis with dependent variable presence (1) or absence (0) of a citizen’s initiative; full model for total dataset and stratified by level of urbanization; B coefficient (standard error)
| Total dataset | Urban a | Semi-urban and intermediate | Semi-rural and rural | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | −2.24 (.591) | −4.67 (.654) | −3.16 (.387) | −2.73 (.600) |
| Confounders | ||||
| level of urbanization: semi-urban and intermediate (ref = urban) | −1.25 (.504)* | – | – | – |
| level of urbanization: semi-rural and rural (ref = urban) | −.56 (.583) | – | – | – |
| Population / 10,000 | .94 (.267)* | 2.16 (.593)* | 1.24 (.470)* | .29 (.519) |
| Socio-economic status | .23 (.119)* | .86 (.228)* | −.12 (.205) | .06 (.271) |
| Care vacuum | ||||
| Percentage of 75+ | .02 (.036) | −.00 (.092) | .01 (.060) | .05 (.075) |
| Current distance GP | .17 (.139) | −3.48 (1.691)* | −.01 (.355) | .14 (.169) |
| Current distance pharmacy | .066 (.108) | −3.47 (1.845) | −.02 (.240) | .04 (.137) |
| Current distance hospital | .04 (.028) | .15 (.157) | −.02 (.070) | .07 (.037) |
| Current distance grocery store | −.27 (.173) | 1.62 (1.588) | .19 (.377) | −.34 (.217) |
| Current distance elementary school | .07 (.299) | −.76 (1.867) | .40 (.695) | .07 (.375) |
| Current distance high school | .17 (.047)* | .09 (.459) | .19 (.130) | .17 (.060)* |
| Current distance library | .02 (.070) | −.11 (.380) | .27 (.155) | −.01 (.094) |
| Distance to GP increased (ref = no increase) | .17 (.396) | b | .05 (.836) | .83 (.522) |
| Distance to pharmacy increased (ref = no increase) | .38 (.346) | 4.26 (1.706)* | .58 (.622) | .45 (.472) |
| Distance to hospital increased (ref = no increase) | −.19 (.213) | .58 (.438) | −.58 (.414) | −.56 (.374) |
| Distance to grocery store increased (ref = no increase) | .84 (.480) | b | .22 (1.034) | 1.09 (.630) |
| Distance to elementary school increased (ref = no increase) | −.60 (.634) | b | b | −.19 (.759) |
| Distance to high school increased (ref = no increase) | −.50 (.260) | −.013 (.602) | −.58 (.594) | −.57 (.378) |
| Distance to library increased (ref = no increase) | −.16 (.257) | .65 (.550) | −.38 (.482) | −.56 (.456) |
| Percentage of migrants | .01 (.012) | .06 (.021) * | −.02 (.027) | .01 (.028) |
| Capacity variables | ||||
| Social capital | 1.59 (.995) | −.64 (1.913) | 1.89 (1.806) | 4.69 (1.897)* |
| Percentage 65–75 | .012 (.052) | .33 (.159) * | .05 (.084) | −.07 (.089) |
| Residential turnover | .003 (.006) | −.02 (.010) | .02 (.011) | −.02 (.011) |
| Percentage high education | .02 (.020) | .15 (.045) * | .08 (.037)* | −.02 (.034) |
| Percentage Catholic | .02 (.008)* | −.03 (.053) | .03 (.013)* | .02 (.011)* |
| Model of action | ||||
| Distance to other initiatives | −.19 (.097)* | .66 (.348) | −.10 (.154) | −.18 (.144) |
| N postal code areas | 2387 | 345 | 1054 | 946 |
| N municipalities | 377 | 15 | 143 | 219 |
| N provinces | 12 | – | 12 | 12 |
| Pseudo R-squared (incl. Random effects | 0.42 | 0.63 | 0.31 | 0.58 |
| Pseudo R-squared (fixed effects) | 0.24 | 0.63 | 0.26 | 0.29 |
aTwo-level model excluding province due to small number of provinces
bNo increase of distance
*p < 0.05
Fig. 2Interaction between the distance to the nearest high school and the percentage of Catholics in the analysis of all postal code areas. Predictive margins, based on the logistic multilevel analysis, presented in Table 4 in Appendix. Reduced model for all postal code areas with interactions, including independent variables only when the standard error was smaller than the regression coefficient. Source: own production
Summary table of hypothesised relationships and results of the analyses
| Results | All areas | Urban | Semi-urban and intermediate | Semi-rural and rural |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mechanism and variable | ||||
| Care vacuum | ||||
| Percentage of 75+ | Ns | Ns | Ns | Ns |
| Current distance GP | Ns | – | Ns | Ns |
| Current distance pharmacy | Ns | Ns | Ns | Ns |
| Current distance hospital | Ns | Ns | Ns | Ns |
| Current distance grocery store | Ns | Ns | Ns | Ns |
| Current distance elementary school | Ns | Ns | Ns | Ns |
| Current distance high school | + | Ns | Ns | + |
| Current distance library | Ns | Ns | Ns | Ns |
| Distance to GP increased | Ns | Ns | Ns | Ns |
| Distance to pharmacy increased | Ns | + | Ns | Ns |
| Distance to hospital increased | Ns | Ns | Ns | Ns |
| Distance to grocery store increased | Ns | Ns | Ns | Ns |
| Distance to elementary school increased | Ns | Ns | Ns | Ns |
| Distance to high school increased | Ns | Ns | Ns | Ns |
| Distance to library increased | Ns | Ns | Ns | Ns |
| Percentage of migrants | Ns | + | Ns | Ns |
| Capacity for action | ||||
| Social capital | Ns | Ns | Ns | + |
| Percentage 65–75 | Ns | + | Ns | Ns |
| Residential turnover | Ns | Ns | Ns | Ns |
| Percentage high education | Ns | + | + | Ns |
| Percentage Catholic | + | Ns | + | + |
| Model of action | ||||
| Distance to other initiatives | + | Ns | Ns | Ns |
| Interactionsa | ||||
| Distance to nearest high school and percentage Catholic | + | Ns | Ns | Ns |
+ = significant coefficient in hypothesized direction
- = significant effect in opposite direction
Ns = non-significant coefficient
aOnly one of the tested interactions had a significant coefficient
Logistic multilevel analysis with dependent variable presence (1) or absence (0) of a citizen’s initiative; reduced model for all postal code areas with interactions; B coefficient (standard error)
| B coefficient | |
|---|---|
| Constant | −2.28 (.555) |
| Confounders | |
| Level of urbanization: semi-urban and intermediate (ref = urban) | −1.29 (.473)* |
| Level of urbanization: semi-rural and rural (ref = urban) | −.61 (.545) |
| Population / 10,000 | .94 (.257)* |
| Socio-economic status | .21 (.105)* |
| Care vacuum | |
| Current distance GP | .23 (.111)* |
| Current distance hospital | .02 (.025) |
| Current distance grocery store | −.24 (.168) |
| Current distance high school | .12 (.050)* |
| Distance to pharmacy increased (ref = no increase) | .45 (.274) |
| Distance to grocery store increased (ref = no increase) | .72 (.452) |
| Distance to high school increased (ref = no increase) | −.54 (.256)* |
| Percentage of migrants | .01 (.012) |
| Capacity variables | |
| Social capital | 1.65 (.984) |
| Percentage Catholic | .02 (.008)* |
| Model of action | |
| Distance to other initiatives | −.23 (.095)* |
| Interaction of distance to high school and distance to other initiatives | −.04 (.026) |
| Interaction of distance to high school and percentage Catholic | .003 (.001)* |
*p < 0.05