Collective efficacy in school andneighborhood and health among youth:(15H03087)

Regional differences across three prefectures in Japan
Takakura M1, Miyagi M2, Ueji M3, Kobayashi M2 and Kurihara A4
1Faculty of Medicine, University of the Ryukyus., 2Faculty of Education, University of the Ryukyus.,
3Faculty of Education, Ibaraki University., 4Faculty of Education, Saga University
Objectives: Social capital has been identified as one of social determinants of health. Collective efficacy
is considered as a form of social capital, and describes a potential social process that incorporates social
cohesion and informal social control. Collective efficacy has been found to be associated with health inyoung people. Although most previous studies on collective efficacy and youth health have been limited toneighborhoods and communities, few studies in this area focused on collective efficacy in schools.
This study examined the extent to which collective efficacy in school and neighborhood is
associated with adolescents’ perceived health and the extent to which the patterns of relationshipare similar across three prefectures in Japan.
Methods: Self-administered anonymous questionnaires were distributed to 1,378 students in grades 1012 (aged 15-18 years) at 6 public high schools across I, K, and O prefectures in 2015. Collective efficacy
was conceptualized as a combination of constructs of social cohesion and informal social control in school
and in neighborhood. School collective efficacy was measured by a scale comprised of 7 items of social
cohesion in school and 7 items of informal social control in school. Neighborhood collective efficacy wasalso assessed by a scale comprised of 5 items of social cohesion in neighborhood and 6 items of informalsocial control in neighborhood. To assess students’ health status, we used self-rated health.
The question items of collective effficacy in school and neighborhood
Social cohesion in school (Cronbach's alpha: 0.920)
1. Students in my school are kind and dependable
2. Students in my school help each other
3. Students in my school can be trusted
4. Students in my school usually try to be helpful
5. Students in my school understand each other
6. Teachers in my school are kind and dependable
7. Teachers in my school can be trusted
Informal social control in school (Cronbach's alpha: 0.918)
1. If classmates were smoking cigarettes, students in my school would do something about it
2. If classmates were drinking alcohol beverages, students in my school would do something about it
3. If classmates were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner, students in my school woulddo something about it
4. If classmates were showing disrespect to teachers, students in my school would scold the classmates
5. If classmates were making some noise during class and disturbing class, students in my school woulddo something about it
6. If classmates were bullying someone, students in my school would do something about it
7. Students in my school would work together to solve our problems
Social cohesion in neighborhood (Cronbach's alpha: 0.953)
1. The neighbors help each other
2. The neighbors usually try to be helpful
3. The neighbors are kind and dependable
4. The neighbors get along with each other
5. The neighbors can be trusted
Informal social control in neighborhood (Cronbach's alpha: 0.902)
1. If students were smoking cigarettes,people in my neighborhood would do something about it
2. If students were drinking alcohol beverages, people in my neighborhood would do something about it
3. If students were showing disrespect to adults, people in my neighborhood would scold the classmates
4. If students were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner, people in my neighborhood would do something about it
5. People in my neighborhood would get together to improve security in the area
6. People in my neighborhood would get together to improve the image of the neighborhood

100%

Prevalence of good health by sociodemographic
and collective efficacy variables

90%Good
health80%？
Schoolcollectiveefficacy

Neighborhoodcollective
efficacy

70%

60%

50%

Prefectur

GradeGenderSchool
type

Familystructure

Parental
educatio

School Neighborcollective collectiveefficacy
efficacy

Logistic regression model of self-rated health with collectice efficacy in school and neighborhood
Total
Prefecture O
Prefecture K
Prefecture I
OR** (95% CI)
OR* (95% CI)
OR* (95% CI)
OR* (95% CI)
School collective efficacy
1.7 (1.4 -2.1)
1.6 (1.1 -2.3)
1.6 (1.1 -2.4)
1.7 (1.3 -2.4)
Neighborhood collectice efficacy
1.1 (0.9 -1.4)
1.4 (1.0 -2.1)
1.1 (0.8 -1.5)
1.0 (0.7 -1.3)
OR's are computed for the increase of 1 standard deviation* Adjusted for grade, gender, school type, family structure, and parental education** Adjusted for grade, gender, school type, family structure, parental education, and prefecture The 48th APACPH Conference,

16-19 September 2016, Tokyo