Outcomes of Interorganizational Networks in Canada for Chronic Disease Prevention: Insights From a Concept Mapping Study, 2015

PEER REVIEWED

Figure 1 consists of 9 polygons, each representing a cluster of conceptually similar statements. The polygons form a circle with one cluster in the center and have been grouped into 3 distinct regions. The region containing the 5 clusters along the bottom of the map is labeled Intermediate Outcomes. Within this region, the cluster on the far left side of the map is labeled Enhanced Learning. Moving counter-clockwise, the next clusters in this region are labeled Improved Use of Resources, Enhanced or Increased Relationships, Improved Collaborative Action, and Network Cohesion. The region containing 3 clusters along the top of the map is labeled Long-Term Outcomes. Continuing counter-clockwise the clusters are Improved System Outcomes, Improved Population Health Outcomes, ending with Improved Practice and Policy Planning at the top of the circle. The final region in the center is labeled Bridging Cluster and contains a single cluster labelled Improved Intersectoral Engagement.

Figure 1. Cluster map showing regions (intermediate, bridging, and long-term outcomes).

Return to Article

Figure 2 is a pattern match, depicted as a ladder graph, showing the correlation between the average importance (left axis) and feasibility ratings (right axis) for each cluster. The amount of correlation between the 2 groups of ratings is reported as a correlation coefficient (r = 0.74). The left side of the ladder shows how participants rated the importance of each outcome cluster, ranging from 3.64 to 4.20. Improved use of resources was rated highest in importance (4.20) followed in descending order by network cohesion, improved collaborative action, enhanced learning, enhanced or increased relationships, improved population health outcomes, improved system outcomes, and improved intersectoral engagement. Improved practice and policy planning was rated as the least important (3.64) outcome cluster by participants. The right side of the ladder shows how participants rated the feasibility of each outcome cluster ranging from 3.35 to 3.98. Improved use of resources was rated the highest on feasibility (3.98) followed in descending order by enhanced learning, enhanced or increased relationships, improved population health outcomes, network cohesion, improved collaborative action, improved practice and policy planning, and improved system outcomes. Improved intersectoral engagement was rated as the least feasible (3.35) outcome cluster by participants.

Figure 2. Pattern match of importance (left axis) and feasibility (right axis) demonstrating the relationship in average ratings for both characteristics across clusters.

Return to Article

Top