↓ Skip to main content

Cross-sectional analysis of self-efficacy and social capital in a community-based healthy village project in Santa Cruz, Bolivia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cross-sectional analysis of self-efficacy and social capital in a community-based healthy village project in Santa Cruz, Bolivia
Published in
BMC Public Health, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12914-015-0054-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Motoyuki Yuasa, Yoshihisa Shirayama, Keiichi Osato, Cesar Miranda, Julia Condore, Roxana Siles

Abstract

An assessment of self-efficacy and social capital may have the potential to detect an effect of dynamic, complex and comprehensive collective actions in community-based health promotion. In 2003, a healthy village project was launched in Santa Cruz, Bolivia with technical assistance from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). The originally developed FORSA (Fortalecimiento de Redes de Salud) model accounted for participatory processes in which people could improve their health and well-being through individual behavioral changes and family/community-driven activities. This study aimed to examine the extent of self-efficacy and social capital obtained via project activities by a cross-sectional analysis. We randomly selected 340 subjects from the healthy village project site and 113 subjects from a control area. Both groups were interviewed using the same structured questionnaire. Self-efficacy was assessed with a General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), while social capital was measured as the frequency of formal group participation in community meetings during the past three months, perceived social solidarity, and general trust. The study results showed that the participants in the project site had higher self-efficacy and social capital compared to those in the control site. The number of times a subject participated in the health committee activities was positively associated with the self-efficacy scale. Regarding social capital, females and lower-educated people were more likely to have had more frequent participation in formal groups; males and higher-educated participants showed less formal group participation, but more generosity to contribute money for the community. The main perceived benefit of participation in formal group activities varied among individuals. The findings suggest that people in the healthy village project site have higher self-efficacy, especially those with active participation in the health committee activities. To recruit more participants in future healthy village projects, we should consider the gender and level of education, and match the perceived benefits of participants accordingly.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 4 7%
Other 14 24%
Unknown 14 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Psychology 6 10%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 7%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 16 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 June 2015.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#16,433
of 17,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,256
of 278,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#234
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,508 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,553 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.