Relating one's social support network to one's mid term grade

Much has been written about the relation of social support to health outcomes. Support networks were found to be predictive of health status. Not so clear was the manner in which social support helped the individual to avoid health complications. Whereas some aspects of the support network were protective, others were burdensome. Duties to one's network could serve as a stressor and duties outside one's network might stress the support system itself. Exposure to one's network was associated with certain health risks while disruption in one's social support network was associated with other health risks.^ Many factors contributed to the impact of a social support network upon the individual member: the characteristics of the individual, the individual's role or position within the network, qualities of the network and duties or indebtedness of the individual to the network. This investigation considered the possibility that performance could serve as a stressor in a fashion similar to an exposure to a health hazard.^ Because the literature includes many examples of studies in which the subjects were college students, academic progress is a performance common to most subjects. A profile of the support networks of successful students was contrasted with those of less successful students in this correlational study.^ What was uncovered in this investigation was a very complex web of interrelated constructs. Most aspects of the social support network did not significantly predict academic performance. Only a limited number of characteristics were associated with academic success: the frequency of support, student age, the existence of a 'mentor' within one' s network, and the extent to which one received a predominant source of support. Other factors had a tendency to be negatively correlated with midterm grade, suggesting those factors may impede academic performance.^ Medical status did not predict grades, but was correlated with many aspects of the network. Disruptions in particular parts of one's network were correlated with particular health categories. In fact, disruption in social support was more predictive of academic outcomes than medical complications. Whereas the individual's values were related to the contributing factors, only the individual's satisfaction with certain aspects of the support network were predictive of higher midterm grades in a psychology class. Dissatisfaction was associated with lower grades, suggesting a disruptive effect within the network. Associations among the features of support networks which predicted academic progress were considered. ^

Perceptions of institutional support of community -based participatory research within prevention research centers

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on the future of health care states that the focus on health needs to shift to the management and prevention of chronic illnesses and that academic health centers (AHCs) should play an active role in this process through community partnerships (IOM, 2002). Grant funding from the National Institutes of Health and the creation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Prevention Research Centers (PRC) across the county represent a transition toward more proactively seeking out community partnerships to better design and disseminate health promotion programs (Green, 2001). ^ The focus of the PRCs is to conduct rigorous, community-based, prevention research, to seek outcomes applicable to public health programs and policies. The PRCs work is to create and foster partnerships among public health and community organizations, to address health promotion and disease prevention issues (CDC, 2003). ^ The W.K. Kellogg Foundation defines CBPR as "a collaborative approach to research that equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each brings. CBPR begins with a research topic of importance to the community with the aim of combining knowledge and action for social change to improve community health." ^ In 1995, CDC asked the IOM to review the PRC program to examine the extent to which the program is providing the public health community with strategies to address public health problems in disease prevention and health promotion (IOM, 1997). No comprehensive evaluation n of the individual PRCs had ever been done (IOM, 1997). ^ The CDC was interested in understanding how it could better support the PRC program through improved management and oversight to influence the program's success. The CDC only represents one of the entities that influence the success of a PRC. Another key entity to consider is the support of and influence of the Schools of Public Health in which the PRCs reside. Using evaluation criteria similar to those that were developed by the IOM, this study examined how aspects of structural capacity of the Schools of Public Health in which the PRCs reside are perceived to influence PRC community-based research activities. ^