Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ENABLING FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN TO BUILD
SOCIAL CAPITAL, AND FEEL CONNECTED AND
SUPPORTED WITHIN COMMUNITIES: COMMUNITY
GROUPS IN NEWER RESIDENTIAL AREAS
CECILY STRANGE
This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy from
The University of Western Australia
School of Population Health
I
ABSTRACT
AIM
The aim of this study was to investigate how families with young children build social capital,
and feel connected and supported within their communities in newer residential areas. In
particular, the extent that community groups such as mothers’ groups and playgroups enable
this process was investigated.
BACKGROUND
Parenthood is a significant transition on the life course; a time often experienced by new
parents as overwhelming, and a time of increased social support need. In Australia, data have
indicated one in four families report low levels of support from outside the home. This is
concerning and may indicate a shortfall in opportunities to build social networks; however, it
may also reflect a changing demography and a more mobile Australian society. For example,
one in four Australians was born overseas; therefore, extended family may not be available to
support new parents. At the same time, mothers are returning to the workforce sooner after
starting a family and older women are staying in the workforce longer – neighbourhoods have
‘thinned’. Starting a family often coincides with moving to newer residential areas in the urban
sprawl; however, newer residential areas commonly experience a lag in physical and social
infrastructure, and sometimes have difficulties in establishing community groups for families
with young children. In sum, these changes can result in less support in local communities for
parents at a time of high need; compounded by an erosion of traditional social and community
support systems. Therefore, due to potential isolation and support factors, parents with
children 0-5 years of age living in newer residential areas were the study population.
METHODS
A sequential mixed methods design was utilised with three methods - interviews and focus
groups (qualitative phase) and an online survey (quantitative phase). The interview findings
informed the development of the focus group guide, and the qualitative findings together
informed the subsequent survey instrument used in the quantitative phase. Thematic analysis
was undertaken on all the qualitative data (n=46). Additionally, a phenomenological analysis
was undertaken with the data from the 12 interviews to explore the experience of ‘being
connected’ to one’s community. The survey instrument was developed and piloted with a test
and retest of new items, and administered via Qualtrics online software. The final survey data
II
(n=489) was analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).
RESULTS
Overall, the qualitative analysis found that participation in mothers’ groups and playgroups
locally were important means of building supportive networks and community connectedness
for families with young children in newer residential areas social capital grew from
participation locally. Parents of young children want to feel connected; to ‘interact’ and ‘to
know what is going on’ in their local community, and ‘to have help nearby if needed’.
Relocation either from overseas, interstate or across the metropolitan region commonly
resulted in loss of supportive networks and experiences of isolation until new networks were
formed. New residential areas had a lag in community physical and social infrastructure that
limited opportunities of interaction for families with young children.
The quantitative results supported the qualitative findings with community participation
(mothers’ groups and playgroups) as a key predictor for higher levels of social capital and
social support. However, stronger associations were found for mothers’ groups participation
compared to playgroup participation. Participation in mothers’ group locally was found to have
a positive association for all dependent variables (social capital, social support and mental
well-being), while participation in playgroup locally was found to have only a positive
association for the social capital measures. Those who lived three years and longer in their
current suburb scored higher on four social capital measures than those who lived less than
three years in their current suburb. However, respondents from newer residential areas scored
significantly lower on only one social capital measure but scored higher for mental well-being.
CONCLUSION
Opportunities for families with children aged 0-5 years to interact with other families in their
local communities are vital for building supportive networks and social capital locally, in
particular, through local community groups such as mothers’ groups and playgroups. The role
of community health and local government in facilitating participation through mothers’
groups and playgroups needs to be strengthened. There needs to be timely development of
the physical and social infrastructure in newer residential areas that supports social interaction
for families with young children.
III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of this thesis was guided and assisted by many whom I would like to
acknowledge and thank. My supervisory team, Lisa Wood, Colleen Fisher and Peter Howat
provided careful and invaluable guidance and support. I have been fortunate to have
supervisors with a variety of individual strengths and expertise that have helped to develop my
own knowledge and research skills. Alex Bremner provided bio-statistical guidance and was a
supportive tutor in the field of regression analysis. This guiding team facilitated the shaping of
this mixed methods study and subsequent manuscripts, and has given me the confidence and
skills for the post-doctoral phase of my career.
Past and present staff and fellow students in the Centre for the Built Environment and Health
(CBEH) provided positive encouragement, and at times, hands on help. In particular, the
parents in CBEH were very helpful with insights into the experiences of families with young
children, and also provided valuable peer feedback on the development of the survey
instrument. More broadly, staff and students in the School of Population Health helped with
the pilot study, and provided a collegial and supportive environment within which to work. In
particular, fellow PhD students were very helpful and encouraging during the last leg of the
thesis journey.
Yvonne Hauck, mentor and friend, shared many a long walk in discussion on the progress of
the thesis. Andrea Folkard, community representative, who has worked with families with
young children for many years in a variety of roles, shared many valuable exchanges on the
experiences and challenges of parents today in local communities.
The mothers who participated in the qualitative phase provided thoughtful reflections on
parenting and living within their communities. Community members included early childhood
and family support staff and child health nurses. They freely gave their time and perspectives,
which added depth to the qualitative data. Those parents who completed the long survey
produced a data set that enabled robust analysis for this thesis and the potential for future
analysis. Ngala and Playgroup WA both assisted with promoting the survey as did numerous
primary schools in the Perth metropolitan area.
Last, but never least, I have been fortunate to have a very supportive family and circle of
friends who have weathered and enjoyed the journey with me.
IV
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS III
TABLE OF CONTENTS V
LIST OF FIGURES XI
LIST OF TABLES XIII
LIST OF ABBREVIATION XV
STATEMENT OF CANDIDATE CONTRIBUTION XVI
DECLARATION OF THESIS PUBLICATIONS XVII
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 RESEARCH CONTEXT AND RATIONALE 1
1.2 AIM AND OBJECTIVES 3
1.3 THESIS STRUCTURE 3
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1 INTRODUCTION 5
2.2 SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH 5
2.2.1 Scope and influences of social determinants 6
2.2.2 Social determinants viewed within an ecological model 7
2.3 SOCIAL CAPITAL 10
2.3.1 What is social capital and how has the concept evolved? 10
2.3.2 Does social capital always make for good company? 13
2.3.3 Social capital – current thinking at the local community level 14
2.3.4 A social capital framework suitable for families with children aged 0-5
years 17
2.3.5 Components of social capital 18
2.3.6 Social capital, community and community connectedness 22
2.3.7 Other constructs related to social capital and community connectedness 22
2.3.8 The relationship between social capital and well-being 23
2.4 FAMILY LIFE TODAY, TRENDS AND SOCIAL IMPACT 25
2.4.1 Migration and relocation 27
2.4.2 Isolation and social support 28
VI
2.4.3 Residential areas and the built environment 30
2.4.4 Do families with children aged 0 to 5 years need more support? 31
2.5 COMMUNITY GROUPS AND SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES DURING THE PRESCHOOL YEARS
33
2.5.1 New parent and mothers’ groups 33
2.5.2 Playgroups 35
2.5.3 Childcare 36
2.6 RESEARCH GAPS 36
2.7 SUMMARY
38
CHAPTER 3 OVERALL STUDY DESIGN 39
3.1 INTRODUCTION 39
3.2 MIXED METHODS RESEARCH 39
3.3 OVERALL STUDY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN 41
3.3.1 Sequential methods selection 41
3.3.2 The geographical areas from which study participants were recruited 43
3.3.3 Qualitative research phase 45
3.3.4 Quantitative research phase 46
3.3.5 Interpretation of study findings 47
3.4 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVAL 47
3.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY 48
CHAPTER 4 QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY 49
4.1 INTRODUCTION 49
4.2 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH 49
4.2.1 Philosophical assumptions 50
4.2.2 Validity and authenticity 50
4.2.3 Naturalistic inquiry and empathic stance 52
4.3 OVERALL QUALITATIVE PHASE 52
4.4 METHODS 53
4.4.1 Interviews 53
4.4.2 Focus groups 55
4.5 RECRUITMENT/SAMPLING 55
4.5.1 Interview recruitment 56
4.5.2 Focus group recruitment 57
4.6 DATA COLLECTION 57
4.7 ANALYSIS 60
VII
4.7.1 Thematic analysis 61
4.7.2 Phenomenology 62
4.8 CHAPTER SUMMARY 63
CHAPTER 5 QUALITATIVE RESULTS – A JIGSAW OF THREE MANUSCRIPTS 65
5.1 INTRODUCTION 65
5.2 MANUSCRIPT ONE: CREATING A VILLAGE IN MODERN SUBURBIA:
PARENTHOOD AND SOCIAL CAPITAL 67
5.2.1 Abstract 67
5.2.2 Introduction 67
5.2.3 Background 68
5.2.4 Methods 71
5.2.5 Findings 74
5.2.6 Discussion 80
5.2.7 Limitations 82
5.2.8 Policy implications 82
5.3 MANUSCRIPT TWO: FOSTERING SUPPORTIVE COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS
THROUGH MOTHERS’ GROUPS AND PLAYGROUPS 85
5.3.1 Abstract 85
5.3.2 Introduction 85
5.3.3 Background 86
5.3.4 The study 87
5.3.5 Analysis 89
5.3.6 Findings 89
5.3.7 Discussion 95
5.3.8 Limitations 98
5.3.9 Conclusion 98
5.4 MANUSCRIPT THREE: THE ESSENCE OF BEING CONNECTED: THE LIVED
EXPERIENCE OF MOTHERS WITH YOUNG CHILDREN IN NEWER RESIDENTIAL
AREAS 99
5.4.1 Abstract 99
5.4.2 Introduction 99
5.4.3 Background 100
5.4.4 Methods 103
5.4.5 Findings 104
5.4.6 Discussion 112
5.4.7 Limitations 114
5.4.8 Conclusion 114
VIII
5.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY 114
CHAPTER 6 CONNECTING THE QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE
RESEARCH PHASES 115
6.1 INTRODUCTION 115
6.2 SUMMARY OF THE QUALITATIVE FINDINGS 115
6.3 DEFINING THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT SCOPE 118
6.3.1 Dependent and independent variables 118
6.3.2 Operational definitions 118
6.4 DEVELOPING THE ITEM POOL 119
6.4.1Utilisation of validated scales and items from other sources 119
6.4.2 Development of new items and scale 124
6.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY 128
CHAPTER 7 QUANTITATIVE METHODOLOGY 129
7.1 INTRODUCTION 129
7.2 PRINCIPLES OF SURVEY DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING 129
7.2.1 Validity 129
7.2.2 Reliability 131
7.3 SURVEY ADMINISTRATION DESIGN 132
7.4 PILOT STUDY, TEST AND RETEST 132
7.4.1 Sample and recruitment 132
7.4.2 Response rates and sample characteristics 133
7.5 PILOT AND RETEST VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY TESTING 134
7.5.1 Reliability results 135
7.6 MAIN SURVEY 136
7.6.1 Sample and recruitment 137
7.7 OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES 140
7.8 CHAPTER SUMMARY 141
CHAPTER 8 QUANTITATIVE RESULTS 143
DESCRIPTIVE FINDINGS AND RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SOCIAL CAPITAL,
SOCIAL SUPPORT AND MENTAL WELLBEING MEASURES: AND
ASSOCIATIONS WITH LENGTH OF RESIDENCE
8.1 INTRODUCTION 143
8.2 DATA MANAGEMENT AND FINAL SAMPLE 143
8.3 DEPENDENT VARIABLES 145
8.3.1 Reliability of validated scales and items 146
IX
8.3.2 Reliability and factor analysis of new scale 147
8.3.3 Dependent variable items from other sources and surveys 149
8.4 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DEPENDENT VARIABLES 150
8.5 OTHER VARIABLES OF INTEREST 152
8.5.1 Overall support external to the home 152
8.5.2 General health status 152
8.6 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN RELOCATION AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES 153
8.6.1 Relocation descriptive analysis 153
8.6.2 Group analysis for length of residence in current suburb 154
8.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY
157
CHAPTER 9 QUANTITATIVE RESULTS 159
MOTHERS’ GROUPS AND PLAYGROUPS: THE ASSOCIATIONS WITH SOCIAL
COHESION, SOCIAL CAPITAL, SOCIAL SUPPORT, RECIPROCITY AND MENTAL
WELLBEING
9.1 INTRODUCTION 159
9.2 MOTHERS’ GROUPS 160
9.2.1 Mothers’ group demographic characteristics analysis 161
9.2.2 Group analysis for mothers’ group participation with dependent
variables 162
9.2.3 Regression analysis of demographic characteristics of mothers’ group
(MG) data 165
9.2.4 Overall support external to the home and mothers’ group participation 166
9.3 PLAYGROUPS 169
9.3.1 Playgroup demographic characteristic analysis 169
9.3.2 Group analysis for playgroup participation with dependent variables 171
9.3.3 Regression analysis of demographic characteristics of playgroup (PG)
data 173
9.3.4 Overall support external to the home and playgroup participation 177
9.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY 177
CHAPTER 10 DISCUSSION AND THESIS CONCLUSION 179
10.1 INTRODUCTION 179
10.2 OVERALL RELATIONSHIPS AND PATHWAYS 180
10.2.1 Qualitative relationships 180
10.2.2 Quantitative relationships 181
X
10.3 SOCIAL CAPITAL COMPONENTS 183
10.3.1 Participation and social networks 184
10.3.2 social action, norms, shared values and trust 186
10.3.3 Social support 188
10.3.4 Reciprocity 191
10.4 MENTAL WELL-BEING 192
10.4.1 Mental well-being and mothers’ group and playgroup participation 193
10.4.2 Mental well-being and demographic associations 193
10.4.3 Mental well-being and community connectedness 195
10.5 THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT 195
10.5.1 Associations with age of residential area 196
10.5.2 Were ever they hang their hats 197
10.6 FAMILY RELOCATION AND LENGTH OF RESIDENCE 198
10.7 STUDY LIMITATIONS AND STRENGTHS 199
10.7.1 Study design 200
10.7.2 Sample selection and recruitment 201
10.7.3 Construct measurement 202
10.8 OVERALL THESIS CONCLUSION 202
10.8.1 Contribution to knowledge 202
10.8.2 Implications for policy and practice 203
10.8.3 Implications for further research 204
10.8.4 Conclusion 205
REFERENCES 207
APPENDICES 239
APPENDIX I CONFERENCE AND ORAL PRESENTATIONS 240
APPENDIX II INTERVIEW MATERIALS 241
APPENDIX III FOCUS GROUP MATERIALS 246
APPENDIX IV SURVEY MATERIALS 251
APPENDIX V SURVEY 259
APPENDIX VI MANUSCRIPT FOUR UNDER REVIEW 269
TITLE: MOTHERS’ GROUP PARTICIPATION: ASSOCIATIONS WITH SOCIAL
CAPITAL, SOCIAL SUPPORT AND MENTAL WELL-BEING
XI
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
Figure 2.1 WHO Commission of Social Determinants of Health
(Solar&Irwin 2010) 7
Figure 2.2 Ecological model based on Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological
theory (1977) 8
Figure 2.3 Social capital model adapted from Bourdieu (1986) 10
Figure 2.4 Social capital model adapted from Coleman (1988) 11
Figure 2.5 Social capital model adapted from Putnam (1995a) 12
Figure 2.6 Neighbourhood social capital model adapted from
Carpiano (2008) 15
Figure 2.7 Social capital model adapted from Harpham et al. (2002) 16
Figure 2.8 Proposed conceptual model of social capital for families
with young children at the local community level 17
Figure 2.9 Services and groups for families with children aged 0-5
years 33
Figure 3.1 Overall study design 42
Figure 3.2 Local government areas involved in qualitative phase 44
Figure 3.3 Stages of the qualitative research phase 45
Figure 3.4 Stages of the quantitative and integration research phase 46
Figure 4.1 Overview of qualitative phase (Figure 3.3 repeated) 54
Figure 4.2 Creswell’s Data analysis spiral 61
Figure 5.1 Social capital model suitable for families with young 71
XII
children
Figure 5.2 Aerial photograph indicating Qualitative study suburbs 73
Figure 5.3 Social capital framework pathway for families with young
children 75
Figure 5.4 Ecological model illustrating four benefits for parents
participating in mothers’ groups and playgroups 90
Figure 6.1 Summary of key qualitative findings 117
Figure 7.1 Summary of survey recruitment process 138
Figure 7.2 Postcard and poster graphic for main survey recruitment 139
Figure 8.1 Correlations between four social capital measures 151
Figure 8.2 Correlations between social support measures with
mental well-being and neighbourhood cohesion 151
Figure 9.1 Post hoc comparisons for dependent variables with
mothers’ group participation 164
Figure 9.2 Post hoc comparisons for dependent variables with
playgroup participation 172
Figure10.1 Relationships between qualitative themes (blue) and
quantitative dependent variables (yellow) and
participation central to both analyses (green)
180
Figure10.2 Dependent variables and positive associations 182
Figure10.3 Social capital framework for families with young children
(Chapter 5 manuscript 1) 183
XIII
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 1.1 Publications and manuscripts under review arising from thesis XVII
Table 2.1 Broad categories of social determinants (Keleher & MacDougall
2009) 6
Table 5.1 Key prompts for interview and focus group discussion 89
Table 6.1 Dependent and independent variables of interest 120
Table 6.2 Items and scale development for Parent Support Outside Home
Scale (PSOHS) 127
Table 7.1 Characteristics of pilot sample with at least one child 0-5 years of
age (n=73) 134
Table 7.2 Pilot test-retest reliability of Parent Support Outside Home Scale
(PSOHS) 136
Table 7.3 Parent Support Outside Home Scale means for pilot test and retest 136
Table 8.1 Demographic characteristics of the main survey sample of parents
with at least one child 0-5 years of age (n=489) 144
Table 8.2 Descriptive results of continuous and interval dependent variables 145
Table 8.3 Means and inter-item correlations for PSOHS 148
Table 8.4 Varimax rotated factor structure of the 10 item scale PSOHS 149
Table 8.5 Pearson correlation coefficients for dependent variables 150
Table 8.6 Overall support from family and friends outside the home (ALCS) 152
Table 8.7 Relocation variables: mobility during last five years and length of
residence 153
Table 8.8 Demographic characteristics by length of residence (<3 years and
3 years) 155
Table 8.9 Means and regression results on length of residence for NIC,FSCCS,
MOS-SSS, PSOHS, Local participation, reciprocity and WEMWBS 156
Table 8.10 Means for neighbourhood cohesion, social capital, local
participation and reciprocity by length of residence (<3 and 3
years)
157
XIV
Table 9.1 Frequencies of mothers’ group (MG) participation 160
Table 9.2 Demographic characteristics by mothers’ group (MG) participation
and non-participation 161
Table 9.3 Means and significance for dependent variables (NCI, FSCCS,
Reciprocity, MOS-SSS, PSOHS and WEMWBS) for mothers’ group
participation in the last 12 months
163
Table 9.4 Multivariable regression results for social capital measures (NCI and FSCCS) and reciprocity among mothers with oldest child 0 to 5 years
167
Table 9.5 Multivariable regression results for social support measures (MOS-SSS and PSOHS) and mental well-being (WEMWBS) 168
Table 9.6 Frequencies of playgroup (PG) participation 169
Table 9.7 Demographic distribution of playgroup (PG) participation and non-
participation 170
Table 9.8 Means and significance for dependent variables (NCI, FSCCS,
Reciprocity, MOS-SSS, PSOHS, and WEMWBS) for playgroup
participation in the last 12 months
171
Table 9.9 Multivariable regression results for social capital measures (NCI and FSCCS) and Reciprocity 175
Table 9.10 Multivariable regression results for social support measures (MOS-SSS and PSOHS) and mental well-being (WEMWBS) 176
XV
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics
AIFS Australian Institute of Family Studies
AIHW Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
CBD Central Business District
CI Confidence Interval
FSCCS Family, Social Capital and Citizenship Survey
ICC Intra-class Correlation Coefficient
LGA Local Government Area
LSAC Longitudinal Study of Australian Children
MOS-SSS Medical Outcomes Study – Social Support Survey
NCI Neighbourhood Cohesion Index
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
PSOHS Parent Support Outside Home Scale
QUAL Qualitative methods
QUAN Quantitative methods
RESIDE RESIDential Environments Project at UWA
SD Standard Deviation
SES Socio-economic status
SIEFA Socio-Economic Indices for Areas
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
UK United Kingdom
USA United States of America
UWA The University of Western Australia
WEMWBS Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale
WHO World Health Organisation
XVI
STATEMENT OF CANDIDATE CONTRIBUTION
Under the guidance and expertise of supervisors Associate Professor Lisa Wood, Professor
Colleen Fisher and Professor Peter Howat, the PhD candidate was primarily responsible for the
following tasks:
Study conceptualisation and planning
Reviewing the literature
Applying for ethics approval
Qualitative interview and focus group recruitment
Qualitative field work, data collection and analysis
Survey instrument development and testing
Survey recruitment and data collection
Data management
Statistical analyses
Interpreting the results
Drafting of manuscripts and thesis
Additional training in interviewing and focus group facilitation was achieved through the
completion of Colleen Fisher’s postgraduate unit on Qualitative Research Methods. Additional
focus group support was provided by Lisa Wood. Support was received from the RESIDE study
group with initial recruitment for interviewees. Associate Professor Alex Bremner provided
statistical advice and guidance for chapters 8 and 9.
XVII
DECLARATION OF THESIS PUBLICATIONS
This thesis contains published work and work prepared for publication, some of which has
been co-authored. The biographical details of the published work or work under review is
listed below in Table 1
Table 1.1 Publications arising from thesis
Chapter Publication Details Authors and % contribution
Status
5 Strange, C, Fisher, C, Howat, P & Wood, L.
Fostering supportive community
connections through mothers’ groups and
playgroups.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 70, no.
12, pp. 2835-2846. DOI:
10.1111/jan.12435
Cecily Strange 75%
Lisa Wood 10%
Colleen Fisher 10%
Peter Howat 5%
Accepted 21
March 2014
Published
5 Strange, C, Fisher, C, Howat, P & Wood, L.
The essence of being connected: the lived
experience of mothers with young children
in newer residential areas. Community,
Work & Family, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 486-502.
DOI:10.1080/13668803.2014.935704
Cecily Strange 75%
Lisa Wood 10%
Colleen Fisher 10%
Peter Howat 5%
Accepted 16th
May 2014
Published
5 Strange, C, Fisher, C, Howat, P & Wood, L.
Creating a village in modern suburbia:
parenthood and social capital. Urban
Policy and Research.
DOI:10.1080/08111146.2014.969399
Cecily Strange 75%
Lisa Wood 10%
Colleen Fisher 10%
Peter Howat 5%
Accepted
3rd September
2014
Published online
3rd December
2014
Appendix
VI
Mothers’ group participation: associations
with social capital, social support and
mental well-being
Cecily Strange 80%
Alex Bremner 5%
Lisa Wood 5%
Colleen Fisher 5%
Peter Howat 5%
Under review
February 2015
Revision under
review July 2015
Signatures
PhD Candidate (Cecily Strange)
Coordinating Supervisor (Associate Professor Lisa Wood)
XVIII
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 RESEARCH CONTEXT AND RATIONALE
Communities that nurture their families are associated with better health and education
outcomes for both the children from those communities and for families more broadly
(Freiberg et al. 2005; Ferguson 2006; Zubrick et al. 2008). Conversely, a lack of social support
and poor community engagement are risk factors for maternal mental health problems
(Mulvaney & Kendrick 2005; Zubrick et al. 2008) and infant health (Australian Institute of
Family Studies (AIFS) 2006). In turn, poor maternal mental and general health is related to
poorer health and development outcomes of children (Robinson et al. 2008; Mensah &
Kiernan 2010). In Australia, the report ‘A picture of Australia’s children 2009’ (Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2009) found that while most parents rated their health
as good, very good or excellent, one fifth of parents reported having poor mental health.
Similar findings on parental mental health have been observed in other countries (Mistry et al.
2007; Carter et al. 2008). Furthermore, the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC)
found that almost one quarter of parents reported insufficient social support from family and
friends outside the home (Zubrick et al. 2008). These findings are concerning, and to
understand what may be of influence we need to consider changes in the landscape of family
life and in traditional support available for families in communities.
The shape and nature of Australian family life and communities has changed significantly over
the past century due to social, cultural, political and economic influences (Poole 2005; Leigh
2010). Families are more diverse with larger numbers of: single parent families, blended
families, same-sex families, refugee background families and migrant families (Saggers & Sims
2005) and are more likely to have complex needs (Borrow, Munns & Henderson 2011). Today,
about one in four Australians was born overseas (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2014a).
Compared to many other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
countries (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2013), Australia
ranks higher in immigration, and there is an upward migratory trend (Australian Bureau of
Statistics 2014a). Mobility within Australia for work (Hugo et al. 2000) and housing (Qu et al.
2012) is commonly experienced, in particular for young adults and families with young
2
children. Migration and mobility can leave families fragmented with a subsequent erosion of
traditional support systems (Vimpani 2001; McMurray 2007).
Historically in Australia, in response to population growth and demand our major cities have
sprawled (Tomlinson 2012), leaving governments and agencies in catch-up mode to provide
the physical and social infrastructure needed for communities in the new residential areas
(Elton Consulting 2012b). In newer residential areas in the urban sprawl there is commonly a
dependence on the motor vehicle (Andrews et al. 2014). Furthermore, housing design is often
not conducive for interaction with neighbours (Andrews et al. 2014), which is supported by
Leigh’s (2010) assertion we are more disconnected from our neighbours as neighbourly
relationships have decreased in recent years in Australia. In addition, more difficulty in
establishing and maintaining groups for young families, such as playgroups, is reported in
newer residential areas when compared with communities in older established areas (Sneddon
& Haynes 2003). Therefore, there is greater potential for isolation to be experienced in these
newer residential suburbs.
Women in Australia are increasingly in the paid workforce, through returning to work earlier
after starting a family (Hayes et al. 2010; Baxter 2013c) and staying in the workforce longer
(Hazelhurst 2003; Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010b), and consequently there are more
families where both parents are in paid employment (Pocock 2005; Baxter 2013c). Women are
still the primary carer in most families. However, they commonly juggle paid work
commitments with care of the family, which can be a dilemma (Pocock 2005). Pocock (2005 p
130) discusses how “thinned local street communities” can have an impact on families through
less social interaction and potentially greater isolation as fewer women are home during the
working week.
All of the above changes may leave families feeling a shortfall in support and potentially
isolated. So how are families with young children faring in our newer residential areas?
As a gauge, social capital measures may provide good indicators of the levels of social support,
community connectedness and wellbeing experienced by families (Ferguson 2006; Zubrick et
al. 2008). Social capital can be broadly viewed as the networks, norms and social relations
among people and/or communities (Coleman 1988; Putnam 1995a) and is a related concept to
‘community connectedness’ (Bullen 2004; Zubrick et al. 2008). What role then can
communities play in nurturing families through the provision of infrastructure, services and
groups that promote community participation and the building of supportive networks? How
does this in turn foster broader social capital within those communities?
3
The findings of this study shed light on the experiences of families with young children living in
newer residential areas, through exploring the influences of participation in community groups
such as mothers’ groups and playgroups, the built environment, relocation and length of
residence that may impact on social capital, social support and wellbeing, in Perth, Western
Australia.
1.2 AIM AND OBJECTIVES
The overarching aim of this study was to explore how families with children aged 0 to 5 years
build social capital, and feel connected and supported within their communities in newer
residential areas; and the role of community groups such as mothers’ groups and playgroups.
The seven key objectives identified for the study were:
To identify community groups and service capacity for families with children aged 0 to
5 years living in newer residential areas
To explore and assess how community groups and services support families and
enable families to participate, become connected and build social capital within their
communities in newer residential areas
To develop a deeper understanding of what it means to be connected to one’s
community for families with children aged 0 to 5 years in newer residential areas
To develop a broader understanding of the impact of the built environment and
relocation on community connectedness for families with children aged 0 to 5 years in
newer residential areas
To identify the relationships between quantitative variables: social capital, social
support, participation, reciprocity and mental well-being for families with young
children; from a survey sample where the majority live in newer residential areas
To investigate group differences for social capital, social support, participation,
reciprocity and mental-wellbeing measures when grouped according to length of
residence, mothers’ group and playgroup participation; from a survey sample where
the majority live in newer residential areas
To compare and discuss the qualitative and quantitative findings
1.3 THESIS STRUCTURE
This thesis is comprised of 10 chapters. Following the introductory chapter, Chapter 2 contains
a review of the literature relevant to the scope of the study and describes key theoretical
constructs, demographic trends and the social and health impacts for families with young
4
children. Chapter 3 contains an outline of the overall study, utilising a sequential mixed
methods design consisting of a qualitative phase that guided the quantitative phase. Chapter 4
contains the details of the qualitative philosophical underpinnings and methodology. Chapter 5
consists of three manuscripts that present and discuss the qualitative findings, which have
been accepted for publication in peer review journals. Chapter 6 contains a summary of the
key qualitative findings and connects them to the quantitative phase through the selection of
variables and the subsequent item pool for the quantitative survey. Chapter 7 encompasses a
description of the survey development, pilot study and testing of scales and new items.
Chapter 8 contains a description of the demographic findings of the quantitative data set,
correlation analysis of the dependent variables of social capital, social support and mental
well-being. In addition, within Chapter 8 are the results of the effects of relocation/length of
residence on the dependent variables of social capital, social support and mental well-being.
Chapter 9 contains the results of the quantitative findings for group differences (mothers’
groups and playgroups) on the dependent variables of social capital, social support and mental
well-being. Chapter 10 incorporates the discussion and triangulation of both the quantitative
and qualitative findings and concludes with recommendations for practice and future research.
5
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter contains a review of a broad sweep of literature underpinning this study of
families with young children in local communities, in particular in newer residential areas.
Following the introduction, the second section consists of a description of the social
determinants of health and the socio-ecological framework, with an emphasis on families with
young children in local communities. The third section includes a review of social capital and
related or sub-constructs, such as social support, social cohesion and sense of community as
key theoretical ideas underpinning social determinants of health. A social capital framework
suitable for families with young children in local communities is proposed. Additionally, within
this section is a discussion on social capital and its relationship to health. The fourth section
consists of a review of Australian family life today through a discussion on demographic trends
and the potential social and health impact on families, in particular families with young
children and those living in newer residential areas. The fifth section includes a description of
some of the typical community groups and services available for families during the preschool
years and how they might provide opportunities to build supportive networks. The sixth
section contains identified gaps in current research and provides a rationale for this overall
study. The chapter ends with a summary including the three key areas investigated in this
study.
2.2 SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH
The literature review for this study needs to begin with the social determinants of health, as
they are the conditions in which “people are born, grow, live, work and age”, that impact on
well-being and health of individuals and communities (World Health Organisation (WHO)
2014a). For families with young children the social determinants for health are particularly
pertinent as they are linked to maternal mental health (Mulvaney & Kendrick 2005) and child
6
health outcomes (McMurray 2007). Social determinants of health, while recognised in the
roots of early public health measures (Keleher & MacDougall 2009), have had a reawakening in
recent decades in part due to the research and advocacy of the World Health Organisation
(WHO) (see Alma-Ata Declaration 1978, Ottawa Charter 1986, Bangkok Charter 2005). The
WHO, through the Commission on Social Determinants of Health advocated and supported
research (WHO 2010), with the publication of several key documents that have identified the
scope and impact of social determinants, such as The Solid Facts (Wilkinson & Marmot 2003),
Closing the Gap in a Generation (Commission on Social Determinants of Health 2008) and the
Marmot Reviews (Marmot & Bell 2012).
Social determinants of health are most pronounced in health inequalities, which can be
defined as “differences in health status or in the distribution of health determinants between
different population groups” globally and within countries (WHO 2014a). Health inequalities
can be mapped against the socio-economic gradient, where people from higher socio-
economic status (SES) generally fair better on health measures than people from lower SES
(Marmot & Bell 2012). However, context and individual and population group characteristics
influence the effects of social determinants; therefore, there is no one size or outcome to fit
all. Nevertheless, where social determinants are avoidable or unfairly distributed health
inequalities also lead to inequities in health (WHO 2014b).
2.2.1 Scope and influences of social determinants of health
While social determinants vary among population groups, it is useful to look at the social
determinants as broad categories to appreciate the breadth of potential impact. Table 2.1
provides Keleher and MacDougall’s (2009 p 53) list of social determinants categories, which
are reflected in the WHO’s The Solid Facts (Wilkinson & Marmot 2003).
Table 2.1 Broad categories of social determinants (Keleher & MacDougall 2009 p 53)
The social gradient Social exclusion
Economic participation and access to
money
Environments (social, built, physical, natural,
cultural)
Employment and working conditions Transport
Early years of life Material resources
Stress Personal health practices and coping skills
Social support Urban health
Food insecurity Health systems
Gender Gender equity and human rights
Violence Discrimination, racism and stigma
Climate change Health literacy
7
Social determinants can also be viewed as influences that are proximal (downstream),
intermediate (midstream) or distal (upstream) to health (Solar & Irwin 2010). For example, in
this study of families with young children, a proximal social determinant could be limited
personal social support or isolation, which is influenced by intermediate (midstream) factors
such as poverty or limited access to parenting support groups, while a distal (upstream) social
determinant could be a government policy that limits access to resources downstream such as
availability of primary healthcare staff. The interactions across the streams are illustrated on
the Commission on Social Determinants of Health’s revised conceptual framework (Figure 2.1).
Of particular relevance to this study is the influence of social cohesion and social capital within
the framework (Solar & Irwin 2010).
Figure 2.1 WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (Solar & Irwin 2010)
All of the social determinant categories listed by Keleher and MacDougall (2009) in Table 2.1
may have an impact on families with young children. However, there are some specific social
determinants that are most relevant to this study. They include: social support for new parents
and throughout the preschool years (Zubrick et al. 2008), capacity for community groups and
services for families with young children (Sneddon & Haynes 2003; Schmied et al. 2008), the
physical and social infrastructure in newer residential areas (Elton Consulting 2012b), and
mobility and migration as the trend in family relocation into and within Australia continues to
increase (ABS 2014a).
8
2.2.2 Social determinants viewed within an ecological model
The influence of social determinants of health can also be viewed from an ecological
perspective operating around an individual, such as in Bronfenbrenner’s model (Figure 2.2),
which was originally developed to illustrate the interactive environmental influences on child
development (Bronfenbrenner 1977) such as home, work and school but is used more widely
now across the life course. The layers of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model can be viewed as a
‘set of nested structures’ (Bronfenbrenner 1993 p 39) moving from the immediate
environment out to finally the influence of historical time and broader social change. At the
centre is the individual, who in this study of families with young children, can be viewed
through the perspective of the mother, the father, the child/ren in the family, and/or as the
immediate family unit.
Figure 2.2 Ecological model based on Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory (1977)
The layers (Bronfenbrenner 1993) and how they pertain to this study (Sneddon & Haynes
2003; Schmied et al. 2008; Hayes et al. 2011; Baxter 2013a) are described below. Moving from
the centre out is the:
Microsystem - the immediate environment in which a person is operating. This includes the
family home environment, the local community, the peer support group, and the workplace of
the individual in the centre, and school or health services with which they are directly involved.
parentinteraction
of twoor more
microsystems
microsystemsMacrosystem
health services
government policy and services
broader community
partner’s work
built environment andneighbourhood
education services
family
home
work
friendslocal community
mother’s groupplaygroup
mesosystem
beliefs
values
culture
laws
family support services
Exosystem
Chronosystem
9
Mesosystem – the interaction of two microsystem environments. This may be the interaction
between the family home environment and local community groups such as mothers’ groups
and playgroups, health and support services, or other local community interaction.
Exosystem – the broader environment that the individual may not be directly involved in but
still has an impact on the individual. For this study, environments in the exosystem include a
partner’s workplace which may influence time and quality with the family, the broader
neighbourhood social structure that influences interaction between local community members
and ‘sense of community’, and local government and health agency initiatives at the local
community level that foster local community interaction and connectedness.
Macrosystem – this includes the larger policy and cultural context of the environment. This
includes government health policy such as access to child health services and policy regarding
the built environment in the local community. Cultural influences include perceptions on
gender roles such as women as primary care givers of young children, and specific cultural
norms.
Chronosystem – this includes events and social changes over time. For this study group, it
includes changes such as increased migration and mobility, an increase in new mothers
returning to paid employment after the birth of a child, which both may be affected by
available social support and access to quality child care.
In this study an ecological model provides a useful framework to illustrate the complexity and
potential influence of social determinants on the well-being for families with young children in
local communities. Furthermore, communities are inherently ‘ecological’ and ‘dynamic’ where
positive interactions provide a reciprocal exchange of benefits for members and the
community as a whole (McMurray 2007). For example, a local community group that is
supportive and inclusive of others can potentially build more local capacity and foster social
capital and social cohesion.
Social capital and social cohesion are two concepts that straddle the mid-stream and down-
stream social determinants (Figure 2.1) and are enabled and active across the micro, meso and
exosystems of the ecological model (Figure 2.2). The next section contains a review of the
seminal and current literature on social capital and related constructs to arrive at a social
capital framework suitable for families with young children in local communities. As social
cohesion is described by some authors (for example Baum et al. 2009) as a component of
social capital it will be discussed within this section.
10
2.3 SOCIAL CAPITAL
2.3.1 What is social capital and how has the concept evolved?
Sociologist Alejandro Portes (1998) stated, the benefits of social participation and connections
within communities is an understood and longstanding core opinion in sociology, and argued
that this insight has evolved into the concept today called ‘social capital’. In his review on
social capital origins and applications, Portes (1998) acknowledged Coleman (1988) for
enabling the ‘visibility’ of the ‘social capital’ concept on the sociology dais. It may be viewed
that the early seminal works on social capital by Coleman (1988), Putnam (1993), as well as
Bourdieu (1986) have laid the foundation for contemporary researchers on social capital; of
which the complexity and depth traverses economic, political, social and health theories and
disciplines. Their theories will be outlined, followed by a critique and the views of
contemporary researchers of social capital.
Bourdieu (1986) viewed three forms of capital: economic, social and cultural, and proposed
that these forms of capital “take time to accumulate…as a potential capacity…and contain a
tendency to persist in their being” (Bourdieu 1986 p 46), and are shaped by each other. In
other words, once formed there is unlikely to be much change from a position of access.
Therefore, those who are disadvantaged will remain in need or excluded, as access to
networks and resources is unequal and/or restricted and are likely to remain stable.
Furthermore, access to resources may in turn result in positive or negative networks and
outcomes. Bourdieu defines social capital to be:
“the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to a possession of a
durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance or
recognition – or in other words, to membership in a group.”(Bourdieu 1986 p 51)
Figure 2.3 Social capital model adapted from Bourdieu (1986)
durable network of relationships
social capital as an aggregate of actual or potential resources
11
At the same time, Coleman was applying the term ‘social capital’ and married the sociological
view of social norms, rules and obligations, with the economic principle of ‘rational action’
theory; where the use of ‘capital’ indicates a resource, which has the potential to be
productive. However, unlike other capital such as physical and human capital, social capital is
embedded within social relationships (Coleman 1988). Coleman proposed that “social capital is
a resource for action…within social relations…and governed by social norms, rules and
obligations”(Coleman 1988 p S95).
Figure 2.4 Social capital model adapted from Coleman (1988)
Coleman focused mainly on social capital for the individual within the family and community,
and proposed that elements that influence social capital to include: “obligations, expectations,
trust, information channels, and norms and sanctions”, and that these elements can
strengthen or weaken social capital (Coleman 1988 p S95). Shortly after, Putnam, whose early
work on the efficacy of regional governments in Italy (Putnam 1993) found that the
governments most effective were in the areas where there was greater civic engagement and
a higher level of trust between strangers, when compared to the less effectively governed
areas. Putnam concluded that “social trust can arise from two related sources – norms of
reciprocity and networks of civic engagement” (Putnam 1993 p 171). This early work of
Putnam (1993) provided a heuristic defining moment for researchers of social capital, and
supporters of this macro-level of social capital include the World Bank (Halpern 2005), Lochner
et al (1999) Szreter and Woolcock (2004) and Woolcock (2000). At the same time, other
researchers steered towards the meso/micro-level that focuses on social capital as an asset for
individuals within communities but also recognised the influence of governments (Portes 1998;
Harpham, Grant & Thomas 2002; Carpiano 2006).
embedded within social relations
social capital as a resource for action - governed by:
social norms rules obligations
12
In Putnam’s subsequent research he clarified his definition of social capital, which is quoted
here: “social capital refers to the features of social organisation such as networks, norms, and
social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam 1995a p
66).
Figure 2.5 Social capital model adapted from Putnam’s definition in Bowling Alone: America’s
Declining Social Capital (1995a)
It is salient to point out that Putnam’s definition refers to social capital as consisting of
‘features’ such as networks and norms, which are resource facilitating components. On the
other hand, Coleman (1988) and Bourdieu (1986) refer to social capital as ‘a resource for
action’ and ‘an actual or potential resource’ respectively. Coleman (1988) and Bourdieu (1986)
view that ‘capital’ refers to a resource that can be realised at some point in time. Carpiano
(2008) and Portes (1998) have criticized Putnam for his focus on the features and ignoring the
importance of social capital as a potential resource, as well as how people either access it or
are denied access. However, this early research of Putnam’s used second source data obtained
from General Social Surveys (discussed below), which focused on ‘feature’ questions rather
than ‘potential resource’ questions. Later Putnam through the Saguaro Social Capital
Community Benchmark (Saguaro Seminar 2000) designed specific questions for measuring
social capital.
Nevertheless, the discussion thus far on social capital appears to indicate two main schools of
thought: Coleman, Bourdieu and supporters (see Portes 1998, Carpiano 2006) who view social
capital as a resource for individuals, and Putnam and supporters (see Lochner, Kawachi &
Kennedy 1999; Kawachi et al. 2004; Szreter & Woolcock 2004) who view social capital to be
coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit facilitated by:
social capital features of social organisation such as:
networks norms social trust
13
primarily the features of groups and societies, which individuals may benefit from. Szreter and
Woolcock (2004 p 654) bridge the two paradigms in proposing that Putnam’s social
infrastructure are the “electrical wires” while Coleman’s and Bourdieu’s social resources are
the “electricity”. Szreter and Woolcock’s (2004) point is that they work together and one is of
limited use without the other.
Putnam’s seminal research (1995a; 1995b), which used data from American General Social
Surveys over two decades, showed evidence of declining civic engagement, where civic
engagement denotes the ‘connections’ people have with their communities, and not just those
of politics (Putnam 1995b). The decline in civic engagement included participation in the areas
of politics and government, union organisations, parent-teacher associations and many of the
traditional groups such as Lions and Scouts. In addition, membership to bowling leagues had
decreased markedly, while the number of individual bowlers had increased (Putnam 1995a).
On the other hand, a countertrend showed growth in ‘self-help support groups’ and
membership to professional associations. However, Putnam found that neighbourliness and
social trust had also declined and that these were closely correlated to civic engagement
(Putnam 1995a). In other words, those more civically engaged were more neighbourly and
trusting of others, and this evidence has been found in other studies internationally (Putnam
1995a). Similar findings have been found in Australia (Leigh 2010), where friendship circles
have reduced and the number of neighbours to call on for favours has dropped. Furthermore,
Leigh (2010) found an increase in the percentage of people who knew no-one in their local
area.
The corollary of this is the loss, both potential and realised, of social interactions and
connections. Putnam purports that reasons for this decline in social capital in America, which
has affected all socio-economic levels (Putnam 1995b), have been influenced by: the large
increase in women in the work force, population mobility, fewer marriages and children, more
divorces, and the use of electronic forms of leisure (Putnam 1995a; Putnam 1995b). It is worth
noting that when Putnam published these reasons in the mid-1990s the internet and other
electronic sources were in an infancy compared to present day (Leigh 2010). On the other
hand, Leigh (2010) considers other potential impacts: the trend towards more people living
alone, and the huge increase in online communication from instant text messaging and emails
to Facebook and other social media sites.
14
2.3.2 Does social capital always make for good company?
Bourdieu (1986), Putnam (2000) and Portes (1998) are all cautious in celebrating the positive
effects of social capital, recognising that while social capital may be beneficial for some it may
also be of no value, restricting or considerably detrimental for others. Several other authors
(Lin 2000; Harpham, Grant & Snoxell 2006; Carpiano 2008; Gwyther & Woolcock 2009) have
discussed social capital as a system of inequality, which empowers some and alienates others.
Such inequalities can be influenced by gender, race and tiers of disadvantage or advantage,
which are largely accounted for by “homophily” through the control of structural and social
interactions (Lin 2000 p 789). In other words, birds of a feather tend to network together. The
potential for exclusion was indicated in a study by Onyx and Bullen (2000) in their Australian
study of five different communities, which showed that rural areas scored higher on
participation and trust scores than urban areas but lower on tolerance of diversity. Therefore,
social capital, while a positive resource for some within a community, can reinforce isolation
within that community for others who may be on the fringe of mainstream (Onyx & Bullen
2000).
2.3.3 Social capital – current literature at the local community level
To develop a social capital framework for this study a review of the current discourse on social
capital at the local community level was needed. Carpiano (2008), who chose Bourdieu’s
theory to assist his model of social capital, explored the impact of social capital on health at
the neighbourhood level; where social capital refers to the ‘actual or potential resources’
within networks. In addition to social capital, Carpiano measured what he referred to as three
separate neighbourhood constructs: social cohesion, structural antecedents, and outcomes of
social capital. Carpiano (2008) criticised Putnam’s definition of social capital, which he felt was
more in line with the concept of social cohesion as it refers to networks, ties and mutual trust,
which according to Carpiano are not resources of Bourdieu’s social capital. Carpiano proposed
that social capital, as an actual or potential resource, consists of four forms: social support,
social leverage, informal social control and neighbourhood organisation participation, and
argues that these forms are resources at the neighbourhood level. On the other hand, Baum et
al. (2009), who also used Bourdieu’s theory to inform their research, included social cohesion
as a measure of social capital. Baum et al. (2009) contend that while Bourdieu did not refer to
social cohesion per se, at the neighbourhood level, social cohesion may shed important light
on the connection between social capital and health.
15
While Carpiano’s (2008) model appears narrow, he nonetheless includes social support as a
measureable form (resource) of neighbourhood social capital, which is omitted by several
other researchers of social capital (Putnam 1995a; Kawachi 1999; Ziersch et al. 2005; Kawachi,
Subramanian & Kim 2008; Berry & Welsh 2010). However, Berry and Welsh (2010) include
several instrumental and emotional support items within their personal social cohesion scale.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics also included social support as one of the potential
‘network transactions’ in their Social Capital Framework (ABS 2004). As one in four families
with young children reported poor social support in the Longitudinal Study of Australian
Children (LSAC) (Zubrick et al. 2008), the significance of social support as a measure of social
capital needs further investigation. Therefore, it is important to consider Carpiano’s
framework, which is adapted in Figure 2.6.
Figure 2.6 Neighbourhood social capital model adapted from Carpiano (2008)
Principally, a weakness with Carpiano’s framework is the exclusion of social capital features
that bring about social capital resources. I would argue that within social capital there are
‘features’ and ‘resources’; features embedded within relationships give rise to the actual or
potential resources (capital). For example, a strong community network (feature) in a country
town may raise money (actual resource) to assist a family to access a city health facility. This
activity, in turn, is likely to build and strengthen the networks and build potential future
resources; the two are interconnected and together encapsulate ‘social capital’ in action.
structural antecedent factors
socio-economic conditions, stability
social cohesion
connectedness values
social capital
(actual or potential resources)
social support
social leverage
neighbourhood organisation participation
informal social
control
16
In addition to Baum et al. (2009) several other researchers view social cohesion as a feature of
social capital (Fukuyama 2001; Harpham, Grant & Thomas 2002; Berry & Shipley 2009; Berry &
Welsh 2010). Berry and Shipley (2010), view social capital to consist of two key and connected
components: participation and social cohesion, which they also refer to as the structural and
cognitive components respectively. Harpham et al. (2002 p 106) builds on this framework and
describe the structural components to include the level of participation and networks or
activity as “what people do”, and the cognitive components which include perceptions of
support (emotional, instrumental and informational), reciprocity, sharing and trust as “what
people feel”. These components are shown in Figure 2.7.
Figure 2.7 Social capital model adapted from Harpham et al. (2002)
social capital
'the degree of connectedness and the quality and quantity of social relations in a given population'
participation
structural elements
'what people do' in terms of social relations
extent and intensity of
associational activity
social cohesion
cognitive elements
'what people feel' in terms of social relations
sharing and trust
reciprocity perceptions of
support
17
2.3.4 A social capital framework applicable to families with children aged 0-5 years
In this section a conceptual social capital framework applicable to families with children aged 0
to 5 years at the local community level is proposed (Figure 2.8). This framework includes social
cohesion, as illustrative of the cognitive components of social capital as advocated by Berry
and Welsh (2010). Furthermore, the two key components (structural and cognitive) are
adopted using Harpham et al.’s (2002) description. For example, structural components or
‘what people do’ include: participation in groups and networks in the community, social action
and norms. On the other hand, cognitive components or ‘what people feel’ include social
support, reciprocity and shared values and trust. Social support is included as proposed by
Carpiano (2008) and Harpham et al. (2002).
Figure 2.8 Proposed conceptual model of social capital for families with young children at the
local community level
social capital
the actual or potential resources arising from features embedded within relationships
'the degree of connectedness and the quality and quantity of social relations in a given
population'
participation
structural components
'what people do' in terms of social relations
participation in groups and
networks in the community
social action and norms
social cohesion
cognitive components
'what people feel' in terms of social relations
social support
reciprocity shared
values and trust
18
2.3.5 Components of Social Capital
This section looks more closely at the different components of social capital as proposed in the
conceptual model of social capital for families with children aged 0 to 5 years in the local
community, in this thesis. These components are discussed below.
Participation (both formal and informal) in the community
Participation in a local community is very broad and may range from: informal interactions
with neighbours, family and friends; participation in community groups with a focus on family
activities such as playgroups or sport teams; to being involved in more formal organisations
within the community such as ratepayers associations or sporting clubs. The term ‘civic
participation’ is a term often used in social capital literature and can include: being a member
of a group or organisation in a non-active role or an active role such as a leadership; or
involved in actions aimed at community change (Stern & Fullerton 2009) (described further in
subsection on social action and norms).
Networks in the community
Social capital is often discussed in terms of networks and ties. Networks can be described as
the relationships between individuals or groups that enable access and resources to members
of networks (Hawe, Webster & Shiell 2004). Putnam (2000) contends that the term network
implies there are ‘mutual obligations’ that encourage forging of reciprocity, which may be
realised at the time or in the future by either the ‘actors’ themselves or others.
Ties are the links within the networks (Hawe, Webster & Shiell 2004), and can be described as
bonding or bridging ties, which Putnam (2000) credits Gittell and Vidal (1998) for the coining of
the terms. Bonding ties, in reference to families and close knit community groups, are
generally homogenous strong ties that tend to be exclusive to outsiders (McKenzie & Harpham
2006). On the other hand, bridging ties, which are the network links across groups where ties
are generally weaker, can provide more effective social capital as they can be more inclusive
(McKenzie & Harpham 2006). As described by Putnam (2000 p 23), “Bonding social capital
constitutes a kind of sociological superglue, whereas bridging social capital provides a
sociological WD-40”. Szreter and Woolcock (2004) suggest that bonding and bridging ties are
primarily horizontal metaphors, while a third ‘linking’ is a vertical metaphor that explains the
enabling or limitations of social capital across formal, government and power gradients in
society.
19
Social actions and norms
The term ‘associational activity’ refers to civic participation in groups or organisations that may
involve collective social action (Putnam 2000), or the activity of individuals such as signing
petitions, contacting politicians or attending community meetings with issues of concern
(Harpham 2008; Stern & Fullerton 2009). Such groups at the local community level may be a
rate payers association or the P&C (parents and citizens) association at a school. In both these
groups collective action is common.
Social norms are the customs or rules that are commonly known and shared, and believed to
be followed by others with sanctions for failure to do so (Bicchieri & Chavez 2010). Informal
social control refers to the community’s ability to maintain norms or restore social control
through sanctions (Carpiano 2008; Harpham 2008). For example, people speeding in motor
vehicles around schools may be reported to police by residents. Informal social control and
collective action commonly coincide (Harpham 2008).
Social Support
Although viewed as an element of social capital by Harpham (2008) and Carpiano (2006), social
support is also made up of a multi-dimensional construct and difficult to delineate (Sarason &
Sarason 2009). Seminal authors on social support theory, House, Umberson and Landis (1988)
and Sarason and Sarason (1990) have viewed the study of social support from sociological and
psychological positions respectively. House, Umberson and Landis (1988 p 302) discussed
social support as an important area of the “relational content” or functional qualities of
relationships. House, Umberson and Landis (1988 p 302) refer to social support as:
“…the positive, potentially health promoting or stress buffering, aspects of relationships
such as instrumental aid, emotional caring or concern, and information.”
On the other hand, Sarason and Sarason (1990) view that it is the perception of social support,
through the belief that there are others who will try to help when needed, rather than actions
of social support, that is its most salient measure. Sarason and Sarason (1990) posit that high
perceptions of social support are related to acceptance from others, self-worth and personal
control, which in turn enhances self-efficacy and reduces anxiety. Sarason and Sarason (2009)
also view social support to be provided within relationships which are both personal and
professional. However, Finfgeld-Connett (2005) views social support to be principally a ‘lay’
resource rather than the social support provided by professionals, and it is in this mode that
social support is viewed in this study.
20
Harpham (2008) separates out perceived social support into three measurements: emotional
support (help to feel things), instrumental support (help to do things) and informational
support (help to know things). While Harpham’s (2008) focus is on perceived social support,
her questions also ask about social support received.
Reciprocity
Putnam (2000) professes that the benchmark of social capital is generalised reciprocity and
refers to actions which are both altruistic for the short term and self-serving in the long term.
In other words, I will help you now with the expectation that when I am in need somewhere
down the track, either you or another person will help me. Reciprocity may also be specific
where favours are exchanged. The view that reciprocity is a core social capital component is
also shared by other authors (Kawachi 1999; Harpham 2008; Berry & Welsh 2010). However,
measurement of reciprocity is also viewed as difficult and is often limited to attitudes on
‘willingness to help others’, which doesn’t take into account the complexity of reciprocal
behaviour and reasons for such willingness to help (Abbott & Freeth 2008; Giordano, Ohlsson
& Lindström 2011). Furthermore, some social capital researchers appear to not include a
specific measurement for reciprocity (Lindström, Merlo & Östergren 2002; Van Oorschot, Arts
& Gelissen 2006), which may reflect the difficulty in the measurement or the view that
reciprocity is an outcome of participation and networks. Nevertheless, Putnam (2000 p 21)
asserts that the norm of generalised reciprocity is the underpinning “golden rule” within
society and includes the responsibilities of good neighbourliness, such as keeping an eye on
your neighbour’s house or assisting a neighbour when a need arises. It may also mean relying
on the kindness of strangers when a need arises, and where generalised reciprocity works well,
trustworthiness is fostered.
Shared values
Shared values are what people feel (Harpham 2008), and along with shared norms can provide
a measure of social cohesiveness (Fukuyama 2001). Baum et al. (2009 p 926) defined social
cohesion as a “resident’s sense of shared norms, values and feelings of belonging within their
local area”. While this may be beneficial for populations and groups, Fukuyama (2001 p 17)
also considers the potential negative outcomes of group shared values on trust, which may
create a “narrow radius of trust” and distrust of those outside the group.
21
Trust
Putnam (2000) refers to generalised social trust to be trust in the absence of opposing
evidence and is underpinned by shared social networks and norms of generalised reciprocity;
mutually reinforcing features of social capital. Putnam (2000 p 136) refers to “thick trust” as
that embedded in strong relationships, while “thin trust” is the more generalised social trust
and comes from shared networks and norms of reciprocity.
Abbott and Freeth (2008) discuss the challenges of accommodating Putnam’s view on trust
when these features are measured empirically. For example, networks are measured as
‘behaviour’ or what people do; whereas, trust and reciprocity are generally measured as
‘attitudes’ or what people feel. Abbott and Freeth (2008) also point out, however, that trust
can also be behaviour, and that different interpretations by survey participants are likely to
occur on what is meant by trust, trustworthiness, trustfulness in the questions asked and to
whom does it apply. For example, personality traits suggest that some of us are inherently
more trusting than others (Rousseau et al. 1998); and distrust, which should not be viewed as
the alternative to trust, may provide some safety, as well as assisting the checks and balances
of those in power (Abbott & Freeth 2008). More recently, Carpiano and Fitterer (2014 p 225)
have proposed that trust is “conceptually distinct from social capital” as perceived trust is
likely to be only measuring psychological characteristics of individuals. However, Lindström
(2014) challenged Carpiano and Fitterer’s (2014) view, drawing on the large body of social
capital research (for example; Coleman 1988; Putnam 1993; Fukuyama 2001; Lindstrom 2004)
that has investigated trust as a component of social capital at the individual or group level.
Lindström (2014) referred to the international disparities of generalised trust in the World
Values Surveys (2006), as well as a recent longitudinal study (Giordano, Björk & Lindström
2012) that indicated individual level trust changed for 45% of the study sample over a period
of seven years. Both of these examples suggest that trust is not a stable psychological trait
(Lindstrom 2014). Nevertheless, Lindström (2014) acknowledges the methodological
difficulties in the measurement and aggregation of trust variables. Social capital surveys
commonly use variations on the World Values Survey (2006) question ‘Generally speaking,
would you say that most people can be trusted or you cannot be too careful in dealing with
people?’ (Claibourn & Martin 2000; Glaeser et al. 2000; Leigh 2006). On the other hand,
Harpham advocates for a ‘trust’ question to include a context; for example, ‘Can people in this
community be trusted?’, and a local community context was applied for this study.
22
2.3.6 Social capital, community and community connectedness
Harpham and others (Kennedy School of Government Harvard University 2001; Harpham,
Grant & Thomas 2002; Bullen 2004) refer to social capital as a measure of community
connectedness. Therefore, it is important to attempt to clarify the difference between ‘social
capital’ and ‘community’, which are sometimes used interchangeably (Colclough & Sitaraman
2005) or as referred to by Putnam (2000 p 21) as “conceptual cousins”. Colclough and
Sitaraman’s (2005) paper on exploring the difference present the following view. Communities
are composed of social relationships that are developed from experiences shared that create
bonds within the membership; whereas, citing Lin’s(2000) definition, social capital refers to
the expected returns (quality and/or quantity) of resources available through social
relationships/networks. Despite exploring what the term community means, Colclough and
Sitaraman do not venture into what community connectedness might then be. On the other
hand, Harpham (2002 p 106) defines social capital to be “the degree of connectedness and the
quality and quantity of social relations in a given population”, which suggests that while
community and social capital are two distinct terms that are also interconnected and mutually
influential.
However, social capital is not ‘place bound’ (Wood & Giles-Corti 2008), and social life and
therefore ‘community’ may be external to the neighbourhood (Stephens 2008). Nevertheless,
when we speak of community connectedness there appears to be the structural feature of
neighbourhood – a ‘place’, and for families with young children who may be less mobile the
neighbourhood is likely to provide a social community as well. Furthermore, social capital
measuring tools commonly ask questions at a local level; such as Onyx and Bullen’s (2000) ‘Do
you help out a local group as a volunteer?’. So while researchers tend to measure ‘community’
locally as in a neighbourhood, communities can be external and can stretch across diverse
social places, and as Stephens (2008) suggests, these wider social spaces also reflect the
complexity of connections and communities that influence bonding and bridging social capital.
2.3.7 Other constructs related to social capital and community connectedness
Sense of Community
The term ‘sense of community’ is another way of viewing ‘community connectedness’. With its
origins in community psychology, sense of community is also a concept present in public
health, (Stephens 2008), urban planning (Lund 2002; Stanley, Stanley & Hensher 2012) and
environmental psychology literature (Francis et al. 2012a). One of the earliest definitions of
‘sense of community’ is from Sarason (1974 p 157) who defined it as:
23
“The perception of similarities to others, acknowledged interdependence with others,
willingness to maintain this interdependence by giving to or doing for others what one
expects from them, and the feeling that one is part of a larger dependable and stable
structure.”
It is interesting to note that this definition appears to have reciprocity, trust and norms
embedded within, which are features of social capital as purported by Putnam (2000).
However, a more recent theoretical framework for ‘sense of community’ by McMillan and
Chavis (1986) appears to be more widely cited (Lochner, Kawachi & Kennedy 1999; Pooley,
Cohen & Pike 2005). McMillan and Chavis (1986) propose four theoretical dimensions to sense
of community: 1) membership is a sense of belonging or a personal relatedness to a group, 2)
influence is a where there is a two way influence between members and the group, 3)
integration where members needs are being met, and 4) shared emotional connections where
there is a shared history and investment. McMillan and Chavis (1986) propose that their theory
and definition of sense of community equally applies to geographical and social communities.
2.3.8 The relationship between social capital and well-being?
Lower levels of social capital have been linked to a myriad of poor health outcomes (Szreter &
Woolcock 2004), including higher mortality (Kawachi et al. 1997), suicide rates (Helliwell 2007),
common mental disorders (De Silva et al. 2005) and poorer general health overall
(Subramanian, Kim & Kawachi 2002; Lindström 2004). On the other hand, higher levels of
social capital have been associated with positive levels of self-rated health (Berry & Welsh
2010; Nieminen et al. 2010a), positive mental health (Ziersch et al. 2009; Berry & Welsh 2010)
and positive health behaviour such as non-smoking (Nieminen et al. 2010b) smoking cessation
(Giordano & Lindström 2010) and physical activity (Lindström 2011). Therefore, it appears that
social capital has some protective influence on health.
While many social capital studies have focused on general adult populations, the literature on
social capital and health relevant to families with young children is growing. Two reviews on
the outcomes for children concluded that: family social capital was a salient predictor of
children’s well-being generally (Ferguson 2006); and, positive associations were commonly
found between family and community social capital and the mental well-being of children
(McPherson et al. 2014). A recent study by Eriksson et al. (2012), not included in McPherson et
al.’s review, found an association between family, school and neighbourhood social capital
with self-reported wellbeing of 11 to 15 year olds.
Among studies with a focus on early parenthood, lower maternal depression symptoms were
24
positively associated with higher social capital scores (Kritsotakis et al. 2013). However, a study
of mothers with pre-school aged children found stronger relationships between maternal
depression symptoms and neighbourhood disadvantage and poor social support than maternal
depression and the mother’s view of neighbourhood social capital (Mulvaney & Kendrick
2005). Mulvaney and Kendrick (2005) concluded that individual characteristics such as poor
social support and deprivation may have more impact on mental health than neighbourhood
characteristics. A similar finding in a review of maternal mental health and social networks
research concluded that mothers with supportive networks fared better with mental well-
being than those with poor supportive networks (Balaji et al. 2007). While social networks and
social support are only two of the components of social capital they are likely to be particularly
salient for mothers in early parenthood when there is an increase in social support need
(Strange et al. 2014b). For new fathers, the research is scant. In one study, married fathers
were found to have higher social capital than single fathers and non-fathers (Ravanera 2007);
however, the relationship to well-being has not been reported in the literature.
Although positive relationships between social capital and child well-being are generally
reported, there are however, some incongruities in the social capital literature. For example,
higher social capital appeared to be of limited benefit in a study by Caughy et al. (2003) who
found that the children living in poor neighbourhoods, whose mothers scored low for social
capital, had fewer behavioural problems than the children of mothers with high social capital
in the same poor neighbourhood. Therefore, social capital is not a simple one size fits all and
the complexity for families with young children is evident.
The precise mechanisms through with social capital influences health are also not yet clear and
a variety of pathways have been postulated in the literature. Kawachi (1999 p 124) proposes
that social capital may impact on health at the neighbourhood level through “informal social
control, maintenance of healthy norms and access to social support”. Folland (2007) and
Harpham (2002) suggest several different pathways in which social capital may influence
individual health outcomes: reducing stress through social ties and reducing negative life
events (e.g. loss of job); social support which acts as a buffer for the stresses of life; trust and
shared norms provide feelings of security; relationships that encourage healthy practices; the
provision of information on health; and increasing the responsibility of community members
for the well-being of others. In this study, social capital may potentially influence the well-
being for families with young children, in particular through the availability or short fall of
socially supportive networks that can help to reduce parental anxiety and isolation, and also
help parents feel connected to their local communities.
25
This brings to an end the general discussion on social capital. However, social capital literature
relevant to family life and specifically for families with young children will be discussed as
relevant within the next section.
2.4 FAMILY LIFE TODAY, TRENDS AND SOCIAL IMPACT
While the preceding section provided the key theoretical underpinnings with relevant
literature, the following sections provide the trends, context and rationale for a focus of
families with young children.
Trends
Starting a family is a defining point on the life course. Whilst the biological transition to
parenthood has arguably not changed (Hrdy 2011); the shape and nature of Australian family
life has changed significantly over the past decades due to social, cultural, economic and
migration influences (Poole 2005; Liamputtong 2006; Parr 2007; Li, McMurray & Stanley 2008;
Hayes et al. 2011). Many of these trends are also evident in other developed countries (OECD
2013).
Today, one in four (26%) Australians was born overseas and about one in five Australians has a
parent who was born overseas (ABS 2012a). In Western Australia, where this study took place,
the proportion of the population born overseas is 30% (ABS 2012b). In comparison, the
proportion of overseas born in some other OECD countries is: New Zealand 23%, Canada 21%,
Sweden 17%, USA 13%, UK 13% (OECD 2013). Immigration into Australia has been an
increasing trend (ABS 2014a). The recent 2011 census indicated that people from the UK
continue to be the main source of migrants, followed by those born in New Zealand, China,
India, Italy and Vietnam (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2014a). These six countries reflected
nearly half the migrants in 2011 (ABS 2014a). Although migration brings growth and
development (Castles, Hugo & Vasta 2013) it can also result in family fragmentation and loss of
traditional support systems, in particular for families with young children when support needs
are high (Liamputtong 2006).
In Australia, other changes are also afoot. Mothers are returning to the workforce after
starting a family earlier than 20 years ago (Hayes et al. 2010; Baxter 2013c); older women are
staying in the workforce longer (ABS 2010b); fathers are spending longer hours at work (Hayes
et al. 2011), and there is an overall increase in the number of both parents in paid employment
(Baxter 2013c). There is an increase in single child families (Parr 2007), the number of divorces
and sole-parent households (Hayes et al. 2011), and extended family networks are more
26
commonly spread across the nation or overseas (Poole 2005). These trends in family
composition, employment and mobility (Poole 2005; ABS 2010c), as well as an increase in
cultural diversity due to immigration and humanitarian refugee programs (Saggers & Sims
2005; AIHW 2009; Hayes et al. 2011), have contributed to significant changes overall in
Australian family life (Poole 2005; Saggers & Sims 2005; Leigh 2010; Holmes & Julian 2012).
A study by Leigh (2010) found that Australian friendship groups have contracted since the
1980s and this is also the case for the number of people Australians reported that they have to
turn to when in need. In addition, Leigh (2010) found the decline to be even more marked
within relationships with neighbours, such as fewer people asking for small favours from
neighbours. He concluded that Australians are less connected than in previous decades. Under
topical consideration as potential determinants for these trends are: a proliferation of ‘online’
communication (Leigh 2010), urban design and car dependency in outer residential areas
(Andrews et al. 2014), and the impact of mobility and migration on social support and
networks (Vimpani 2001; McMurray 2007; Viry 2012). Furthermore, while it is not uncommon
for older people to live alone, there has been an increasing trend in young and middle aged
adults living alone in Australia (ABS 2009a). Davis and Posselt (2009), in their discussion on
social capital, reported that while actual time spent unaccompanied has increased overall,
there has also been a decrease in the time spent with friends and relatives who live elsewhere.
Davis and Posselt (2009) draw the conclusion that living today is more ‘individualistic’ and
relationships are more ‘fragmented’ when compared to the past.
Social impact for families
The corollary of these trends is the potential impact on the social determinants of health and
social capital, and several authors have discussed the implications for communities and
families (Putnam 1995a; Field 2008; Kawachi, Subramanian & Kim 2008; Leigh 2010; Williams
& Pocock 2010; Fagan & Norman 2012; Mackay 2014). Furthermore, there has been an
expanding discourse on the potential impact of these social changes and trends on social
support, social capital and connectedness for families with young children, in particular for
families isolated or socially disadvantaged (Vimpani 2001; Moore 2006; Gray & Sims 2007;
McMurray 2007; Li, McMurray & Stanley 2008; Moore 2008). Discourse has often been
focused on families in particular circumstances. For example, families with young children who
have recently immigrated to Australia are likely to have limited ‘hands on’ support from
extended family who remain in their country of origin (McMurray 2007); other families
isolated either geographically or where there is limited social infrastructure (Fegan & Bowes
2009); Indigenous families and lone parents (Bowes, Watson & Pearson 2009); and for parents
27
balancing work and family demands (Pocock 2005; Li, McMurray & Stanley 2008). The
following sub-sections (2.4.1 to 2.4.4) will look more closely at some of the social impacts of
these changing societal trends, particularly, in relation to families with young children and the
influence on social support and social capital.
2.4.1 Migration and mobility
Evidence of the impact on social capital from immigration is not conclusive. On a societal scale,
Putnam (2007) argues that diversity from immigration initially lowers social capital; however,
in time there are collective strengths to be gained from diversity. The contrary view drawn by
Kesler and Bloemraad (2010), in their review of immigration across several international
studies, is that countries with policy supporting equality and diversity do not experience a
decline in social capital. Nevertheless, at the local community level, social capital for
immigrants is likely to be effected by access to social networks, and inclusion or exclusion in
the broader community, as indicated by several authors (Zhou & Kim 2006; Levine-Rasky 2009;
Jackson et al. 2013; Ramsden & Taket 2013). Furthermore, migration from overseas may
include multiple relocations as families transition and settle with employment and housing
needs (McMurray 2007). This transition may include starting a family coinciding also with
adjustment to a new culture (McMurray 2007).
In addition, migration and mobility within Australia is common, in particular by young adults
(ABC 2010c), often seeking work opportunities in other states (Hugo et al. 2000). Starting a
family or a birth of a child often coincides with home relocation (Qu et al. 2012; Clark 2013),
frequently to outer urban suburbs for lifestyle and affordability (Hiller, Melotte & Hiller 2013;
Andrews et al. 2014) where the proportion of 0 to 4 year olds can be as high as double the
national average (ABS 2012a). Similar life-course findings have been found in the UK (Clark &
Huang 2003) and several other countries (Kulu & Milewski 2008). Mobility between suburbs
tends to increase in smaller families seeking additional space and lifestyle, such as for those
starting a family, and decreases in larger families due to less need and costs (Kulu & Milewski
2008). Couples and families with children are more likely to move to home ownership than
stay in the rental market (Kulu & Milewski 2008). Therefore, relocation through migration from
overseas, interstate, regionally or inter-suburb is a common experience of families in the early
parenthood life-course, in particular in Western Australia, which has experienced the fastest
growth in population in Australia since 2012 (ABS 2014c).
Migration and mobility both subsequently influence the ‘length of residence’ experienced in
many communities as people and families move in and out. However, the relationship with
social capital is poorly understood as ‘length of residence’ is commonly used as a control
28
measure rather than a variable of particular interest in quantitative studies (Harpham 2008;
Mohnen et al. 2013). Nevertheless, there have been some interesting findings. For example, a
study in Japan for older adults (Hanibuchi et al. 2012) found that some features of social
capital at the neighbourhood increased with length of residence and age of a local community.
A study by Leyden (2003) found that length of residence was positively associated with two of
their four social capital measures while Wood et al. (2010) did not find an association between
length of residence and sense of community.
Another study by Keene et al. (2013) in the USA found that as length of residence increased so
did some social integration measures: reciprocity, social support and social ties; with the
exception of social cohesion. Furthermore, Keene et al. (2013) also found there were greater
social benefits from increased length of residence in lower SES areas than higher SES areas.
However, another study found areas of disadvantage had higher mobility rates for pregnant
women and families with young children than non-disadvantaged areas, often due to
relationship, financial and housing problems (Tunstall, Pickett & Johnsen 2010; Tunstall,
Cabieses & Shaw 2012). These findings suggest a paradox - while disadvantaged communities
may benefit more from stability they commonly have higher mobility rates due to factors of
disadvantage.
The inconsistencies in findings relating to mobility reflect the potential complexity of
influences on social measures. One such influence may be the ‘exposure intensity’ of social
capital for different life-course groups. For example, families with young children may spend
more time in the local neighbourhood, and may therefore, be viewed to have high exposure to
social capital (Mohnen et al. 2013). Mohnen et al. (2013) found a stronger association between
self-rated health and social capital for those who had lived in the neighbourhood between
seven and 22 years compared to those who had lived less or longer, and this was much
stronger for families with young children. Importantly, Mohnen et al. (2013) did not find social
capital benefits for newcomers, which highlights the time it takes for social networks to
develop when new to a neighbourhood and the risk of isolation for families with young
children who have recently relocated.
2.4.2 Isolation and social support
Isolation and low social support are risk factors for poorer health and mental health generally
(Berkman & Glass 2000; Cornwell & Waite 2009), and in particular during the transition to
parenthood (Leahy-Warren, McCarthy & Corcoran 2012; Eastwood et al. 2013) and parenting
in the preschool years (Mulvaney & Kendrick 2005), which is the focus of this study.
29
In the 2010 General Social Survey (ABS 2010c), 96% of Australian households with children
aged 0-14 years reported that they were able to ask for support outside the home in a crisis,
and 97% had weekly contact with family or friends. Such findings are encouraging; however,
Davis and Posselt (2009) suggest that these high proportions do not give any indication of what
actual social support is available to sub-groups, in particular those who are socially and
economically disadvantaged. For parents of preschool aged children, as indicated in the LSAC
study (Zubrick et al. 2008), a shortfall of support from outside the home was experienced by
nearly a quarter of respondents, and nearly a quarter of the mothers had only minimum time
with friends (This is discussed further in 2.4.4). On the other hand, families with school age
children often have access to the school community network (Wood et al. 2013), and
therefore, isolation may be less of an issue for families with children who attend school.
However, a recent study in Australia found that couples with children were more lonely than
couples without children and that mothers fared worse than fathers (Baker 2012).
The impact of home relocation on networks and social support has been studied with mixed
results (Magdol 2000; Magdol & Bessel 2003). While the effects on social networks for
mothers of young children was non-conclusive, frequent movers were more likely to be
disadvantaged mothers who moved locally and who had limited networks and fewer friends
(Magdol 2000). In contrast, less disadvantaged mothers often moved further and had larger
social networks (Magdol 2000). A later study by Magdol and Bessel (2003) that adjusted for
socio-demographics, found that families who moved long-distance or had recently moved
experienced low levels of social exchange, while increased length of residence had a positive
effect on support exchanged. Furthermore, where kin networks were not available non-kin
networks were stronger, in particular for those affected by mobility and distance (Magdol &
Bessel 2003).
The impact of employment on social support for families is also important to consider. One of
the outcomes of more women in the paid workforce is the “thinning” of local communities,
which can result in real or a heightened sense of isolation for women at home (Pocock 2005 p
130). Nevertheless, women are still the primary care givers within families (Pocock 2005;
Baxter 2013b) and the employment trends of parents appear to be impacting on time
pressures (Hayes et al. 2011). While 38% of the mothers not in paid employment, in the first
wave of the LSAC study, often felt ‘rushed or pressed for time’, 62% of mothers in paid
employment and in couple relationships and 78% of single mothers who worked full time often
felt ‘rushed or pressed for time’ (Hayes et al. 2011). Interestingly, only 40% of fathers who
worked full time reported feeling often ‘rushed or pressed for time’ (Hayes et al. 2011), which
supports Pocock’s (2005) assertion that women in families remain the ones juggling
30
everything. The ‘thinning’ of communities and being pressed for time due to work may impact
on opportunities to interact and participate in the local community, which may subsequently
influence the extent of socially supportive networks formed.
2.4.3 Residential areas and the built environment
Over the last few decades interest on the impact of the built environment on social capital
(Wood, Giles-Corti & Bulsara 2012), health behaviour (Giles-Corti et al. 2008) and mental well-
being (Francis et al. 2012b) has grown (Eicher & Kawachi 2011). Eicher and Kawachi (2011)
summarise key insights and developments pertaining to health that are now given credence in
urban planning. For example, the importance of ‘shared space’ and ‘third’ places; coined by
Oldenburg (1999) as distinct from ‘first’ and ‘second’ places which are home and work
respectively. Shared space and third places refer to spaces where community members can
interact informally, such as at shopping hubs, cafes and parks, or for more organised activities
in groups at community and sporting centres (Oldenburg 1999; Kent & Thompson 2014).
Shared spaces are ideally but not always found in ‘mixed land use’ areas, an urban planning
term which describes an area where residents live near services and amenities (Eicher &
Kawachi 2011). Therefore, the premise is that mixed land use areas generally have more
opportunities for interaction and pedestrian behaviour than areas that are residential only
(Eicher & Kawachi 2011; Kent & Thompson 2014). Mixed land use areas that are walkable
(pedestrian oriented) have been found to have higher levels of social capital (Leyden 2003) and
sense of community (Lund 2002).
However, burgeoning newer residential areas on the outskirts of cities commonly experience a
lag or shortfall of several types of physical and social infrastructure such as community centres
and shopping hubs (Elton Consulting 2012a; Elton Consulting 2012b) that enable shared
spaces, and hence also a reliance of motor vehicles to get to services and amenities outside
the local area (Andrews et al. 2014). Furthermore, Putnam (2000 p 213) proposes that
commuting to and from the urban sprawl is “demonstrably bad” for community life either
through loss of time for potential civic agency or social interaction. Current urban planning
recommendations include: mid density designs to increase social interaction (Bramley & Power
2009), walkable designs (Giles-Corti et al. 2008), and shared space designs to increase
incidental interaction and local improvements to already established areas (Eicher & Kawachi
2011).
Furthermore, newer residential areas sometimes have difficulty in establishing and
maintaining community groups for families with young children, such as playgroups (Sneddon
& Haynes 2003). Sneddon and Haynes (2003) reported that difficulties in establishing and
31
maintaining playgroups in newer residential areas included a lack of suitable facilities and
human resources to initiate, organise and maintain the groups. This coupled with the outer
physical location of many newer areas means that families with young children in newer areas
may be at greater risk of isolation than more established areas. When social infrastructure in
newer areas is not planned and invested in, there is the real risk of these new communities
becoming areas of “social disadvantage” (Elton Consulting 2012a p 1).
The LSAC study has provided some thought provoking findings on neighbourhood perceptions
(Edwards 2006). For example, parental perceptions of neighbourhood facilities were lower in
more disadvantaged areas and where there was a higher proportion of children to adults
compared to the areas viewed as having higher quality facilities (Edwards 2006). Children
growing up in more disadvantaged areas have also been found to score lower on core physical,
social, emotional and learning developmental indicators after controlling for income and
education (Edwards 2005). Similar relationships between area SES and developmental
outcomes have been found in the United States (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn 2000) and Canada
(Curtis, Dooley & Phipps 2004). Furthermore, parental perceptions of their neighbourhood,
after adjusting for SES, appears to also have some effect on children’s social and emotional
outcomes (Edwards & Bromfield 2010).
In summary, it could be argued that family life has become more challenging, influenced by
several factors that include: immigration and mobility, which commonly involves cultural
change and isolation until new social networks are formed; parents are often time poor and a
quarter report feeling a shortfall in support from outside the home; parents feel lonelier than
non-parents; and families with young children commonly live in suburbs that sometimes
provide limited opportunities for social interaction. The next sub-section will look more closely
at the concerns for families with children aged 0 to 5 years.
2.4.4 Do families with children aged 0 to 5 years need more support?
The transition to parenthood is profound and one for which parents are often not well
prepared (Deave, Johnson & Ingram 2008). It is a period when parents commonly feel
overwhelmed and emotionally and physically exhausted (Nelson 2003; Nyström & Öhrling
2004; Barnes, Pratt, Finlayson, Courtney, Pitt & Knight 2008). Parenthood sometimes brings
feelings of isolation (Matthey 2011) and loneliness, in particular for mothers (Baker 2012), and
parents during transition and the early years are at greater risk of mental health problems
(Mulvaney & Kendrick 2005; Leahy-Warren, McCarthy & Corcoran 2012; Eastwood et al. 2013).
Therefore, it is a time of increased need for social support.
32
However, a number of studies and reports indicate that families in Australia are experiencing
perceived shortfalls in social support. From the first wave of the LSAC study with two cohorts
(families with 0-1 year old infants and families with 4-5 year olds) almost a quarter of the
primary care givers reported not receiving enough support from family and friends outside the
home (Zubrick et al. 2008). The third wave from LSAC reported that 25% of mothers and 37%
of fathers did not feel they had someone to confide in either most or all of the time, and a
minimum weekly contact with friends was not experienced by 23% of mothers and 45% of
fathers (AIFS 2009). These findings suggest that mothers are more supported than fathers, but
this may also reflect that mothers seek friendships, confidants and contact more than fathers.
In addition, and importantly, from the LSAC first wave data, low community connectedness
was one of the significant predictors of negative developmental and health outcomes for
infants (AIFS 2006). First wave LSAC research also found that parents of newborns scored
significantly lower for ‘sense of belonging’ to the neighbourhood compared to the parents of
four year olds (Edwards 2006). Edwards (2006) suggests that ‘perhaps’ the parents of the four
year olds had lived longer in the neighbourhoods but length of residence was not measured.
Overall these LSAC findings may reflect in part the changing demography as discussed
throughout Section 2.4, in particular, relocation experiences that may reduce social networks
available for support – at least in face to face contact and until new support networks are
developed. These findings may also reflect several other factors, such as, families who are
vulnerable, disadvantaged or isolated within communities, or parents’ work places with little
collegial company or friendship networks.
Mothers without the support of others is a concern shared by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, (2011) an
anthropologist and primatologist, who purports that alloparenting or co-operative breeding
has been a long standing evolutionary strength of humans since early hunter gather times.
Alloparenting is simply the support from others in the care of children. Hrdy argues that
alloparenting developed from empathy, a human trait that has enabled humans from a very
early age to understand the intentions and circumstances of others. This trait has been critical
in enabling young to survive into adulthood, mothers to reproduce several times over and to
live past their reproductive years as they continue to alloparent as grandparents and aunts.
Hrdy (2011) has observed a decrease in alloparenting for child rearing in modern societies that
has left many families potentially unsupported and vulnerable. In support of her argument for
alloparenting, Hrdy (2011) refers to the historical evidence of mothers abandoning their young
where there has not been enough support. In Australia, as in other countries that have
experienced a similar erosion of traditional support available for families with young children,
Hrdy’s view is salient and thought provoking.
33
So, what are the options in our modern world for parents to seek and build supportive
networks? There are several examples in the literature that indicate the benefits of parent and
community groups (Hanna et al. 2002; Fielden & Gallagher 2008; Jackson 2009; Young 2009) in
reducing isolation for families with young children. The commonly used community groups
and services will be described in the next section.
2.5 COMMUNITY GROUPS AND SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES DURING
THE PRESCHOOL YEARS
Currently, in Australia there are a variety of government and non-government services and
community groups for families with preschool aged children. Common examples are displayed
in Figure 2.9. Child health centres offer a universal health service and are funded by
government. For the purposes of this thesis three of these (mothers’ groups, playgroups and
childcare) are discussed in detail in the sub-sections below.
Figure 2.9 Services and groups for families with children aged 0-5 years
2.5.1 New parent and mothers’ groups
In Australia, the universal health service provides an initial post natal home visit by the child
health nurse (Schmied et al. 2008). This is commonly followed by consultations at the child
health centre for baby wellness checks and if or when parents have any concerns; although,
some families visit their local doctor instead or use a combination of services (Schmied et al.
2008). In addition to this service, child health nurses commonly facilitate mothers’ groups or
new parent groups (Schmied et al. 2008). These groups are designed to deliver parenting
information, provide an opportunity for parents to share experiences and foster an
environment for the building of socially supportive networks (Scott, Brady & Glynn 2001;
Child health centre
Mothers groups -nurse,
community and parent
led
Parenting course –nurse or other led
Childcare –informal
and formal
Playgroups –parent,
community led or
supported
Other informal groups –
toy libraries, crèches
Early childhood
type programs
Formal school
entry from 4 ½ years
newborn school
34
Hanna et al. 2002; Fielden & Gallagher 2008; Schmied et al. 2008; Barnes, Pratt, Finlayson, Pitt
& Knight 2010). Weekly sessions are generally facilitated for four to six weeks; however, there
is a variety of models in delivery. For example, the First Steps Program was started in response
to resource pressure, which led to combining parenting groups with child assessment,
although parents could still attend individual consultations if needed (Barnes et al. 2010).
Alternatively, open groups in some areas run continually so they can be accessed as needed by
mothers and allow more flexibility (Kruske et al. 2004; Kearney & Fulbrook 2012). At the same
time, some of these programs have been restricted due to limited resources (Guest & Keatinge
2009). In addition, other new parenting groups are delivered for specific groups such as
teenage mums, and through maternity hospital services and non-government organisations
such as Ngala in Western Australia.
Facilitation appears to work best when the groups are run more informally and less instructive
in style, which encourages interaction, peer learning and empowerment of parents (Scott,
Brady & Glynn 2001; Kruske et al. 2004; Guest & Keatinge 2009; Kearney & Fulbrook 2012).
However, attendance at mothers’ group sessions following an invitation from the child health
nurse have been found to range from 33 to 95% (Scott, Brady & Glynn 2001). Reasons for not
joining included returning to work, incompatibility, did not like to participate in groups, and
sufficient social support already (Scott, Brady & Glynn 2001). Nevertheless, some of those not
attending mothers’ groups or child health centres have been identified as vulnerable (Schmied
et al. 2008), and may experience low social support as well as disconnection within in their
communities.
Following the facilitated sessions, parents are encouraged to continue meeting as a group,
which may be at a café, park or taking turns at each other’s homes. After the facilitation the
groups are then completely parent led. A follow up by Scott, Brady and Glynn (2001) found
that many groups were self-sustaining with two thirds of women still meeting in their mothers
groups 18 months to two years later.
Evaluations of mothers’ groups and parenting programs as sources of peer social support are
generally positive. Studies to date have generally indicated that parenting and mothers’ groups
are opportunities that can engender social support and networks for young families within the
group (Scott, Brady & Glynn 2001; Hanna et al. 2002; Sneddon & Haynes 2003; Schmied et al.
2008) as well as in the local community (Matthey & Barnett 2005; Fielden & Gallagher 2008;
Hjälmhult et al. 2014). In contrast to peer social support, an evaluation of ‘professional’
support found no benefits of post natal support for low risk families; however, for high risk
families there appeared to be some benefit from professional support (Shaw et al. 2006).
35
Therefore, these findings suggest that the ‘real’ social support benefits are provided by peers
who are experiencing the similar concerns and stages of life.
2.5.2 Playgroups
Chronologically a playgroup is the next community group available for families with preschool
children to join. Playgroups are sessions for both the parent(s) or caregiver and their preschool
aged child(ren) to attend together, and similar groups exist internationally (Mulcahy, Parry &
Glover 2010). The age of the child(ren) is normally 1-4 years of age. Sometimes the playgroup
has evolved from a mothers’ group (Schmied et al. 2008), is an established local parent led
playgroup, run by church or community groups, or as a ‘supported’ playgroup with a facilitator
(Sneddon & Haynes 2003). Parent led playgroups have been operating in Australian since the
1970s (Sneddon & Haynes 2003), while supported playgroups, which are a more recent
intervention, are commonly funded to reach disadvantaged and vulnerable groups such as
refugee background families, teenage mums or where there is limited capacity for parent-led
playgroups (Freiberg et al. 2005; Jackson 2009; Young 2009).
Playgroups have been evaluated more in relation to the benefits for children; for example in
the LSAC study (Hancock et al. 2012), whereas, there has been a paucity of evaluation on the
role of playgroups and how they assist in building social capital and social support for parents
(Young 2009). However, facilitators of playgroups do target the benefits of the social support,
networking and participation for families (Freiberg et al. 2005; Jackson 2009; Young 2009;
Jackson 2011b) and agencies also use a variety of strategies to involve ‘hard to reach’ families
(Funnell & Rogers 2008). While playgroup evaluations have generally reported positive
aspects, negative aspects and barriers to playgroups have also been found in a couple of
studies (Sneddon & Haynes 2003; Mulcahy, Parry & Glover 2010). Negative aspects may
include: feeling isolated within a group, being judged, and conformity in order to remain
included.
In addition, sometimes it has been found to be more difficult to establish and/or maintain
playgroups in newer residential areas (Sneddon & Haynes 2003). One promising strategy
included a mentoring intervention where experienced playgroup initiators and staff assisted
local communities to build and maintain the playgroup service in newer residential areas that
had difficulties getting playgroups established (Sneddon & Haynes 2003). While there are
other common community groups/activities such as story or rhyme times at municipal
libraries, toy lending libraries and a variety of physical programs, mothers’ groups and
playgroups are more universal in attendance and therefore, were the focus of this study.
36
2.5.3 Childcare
Childcare, while not part of this study, is included here in the literature review to provide
further context for families with preschool aged children. In Australia childcare can be
described as ‘formal’, which is regulated care away from the child’s home, or ‘informal’, which
is non-regulated and may be provided in the child’s home or elsewhere and includes care
received by friends, neighbours and relatives (ABS 2010a).
Childcare places and the number of families using childcare have continued to increase (Baxter
2013a). During 2011 around 50% of 0-2 years olds and 70% of 3-5 year olds were in some form
of childcare, either formal and/or informal (Baxter 2013a). Formal childcare has been
increasing while informal care, in particular for 3-5 year olds, has been decreasing possibly due
to early childhood programs and long day care (Baxter 2013a). Informal care is still commonly
provided by adult relatives (Baxter 2013a).
The ABS results from 2008 indicated that use of ‘formal’ childcare was: 70% due to work-
related reasons; 12% due to personal reasons of the parent, such as, giving parents a break,
time alone or time to care for other relatives, study, sport and recreation; and 18% to prepare
children for school (ABS 2010a). Therefore, 30% of families used ‘formal’ childcare for non-
work related purposes, which may reflect limited family and social networks to provide
‘informal’ childcare when needed for other reasons. Winkworth et al. (2010a) advocate the
need for families, in particular those disadvantaged and vulnerable to isolation, to have access
to flexible and affordable child care that enables them time to prepare for work, study and to
participate in the community.
In summary, access to mothers’ groups, playgroups and childcare are dependent on family
needs and resources, local capacity and the accessibility to groups and services. What needs to
be done to better support families with young children, to feel connected in their local
communities, in particular in newer residential areas? The next section will look at the gaps in
the research that are in part investigated in this thesis. It is hoped that the findings from this
study will help to inform policy and practice so families with young children are more
supported within their local communities.
2.6 RESEARCH GAPS
The theory of social capital and related concepts such as community connectedness has
aroused a vigorous discussion on the relevance for measurement and as an objective within
strategies to improve the health and wellbeing of individuals and communities (Baum et al.
37
1999; Hawe & Shiell 2000; Wakefield & Poland 2005; Ziersch et al. 2005; Harpham 2008;
Arthurson, Baum & Ziersch 2014). Putnam (1995b) argues that discussion must lead to
empirical measurement of social capital in order to assess the benefits or otherwise for
individuals, groups and communities. However, it is Harpham’s (2002) view of exploring social
capital through ‘what people feel and do’ both quantitatively and qualitatively that I feel
resonates most with the experiences of families in local communities – how do families with
young children build social capital and supportive networks?
There are several authors who have explored social capital through a qualitative design
(Seaman & Sweeting 2004; Svendsen 2006; Eriksson, Dahlgren & Emmelin 2009; Baum et al.
2011) and a mixed methods design (Ziersch et al. 2005; Baum et al. 2009; Wood et al. 2013).
However, there is a relative paucity of studies with such a breadth of methods that have
explored social support and social capital for families with children aged 0-5 years (Jackson
2009; Mulcahy, Parry & Glover 2010). For example, the LSAC study (Zubrick et al. 2008; AIFS
2009) results indicated a shortfall in perceived social support from outside the home, as
reported by primary care-givers; however, meaningfulness is limited, as the factors that enable
a family to feel supported or have support to draw upon are unknown. The essence is missing.
Therefore, research needs to engage both quantitative and qualitative methods to explore
how families with young children experience social support, social capital and connectedness,
to provide a deeper and richer understanding of these factors.
The development of strategies to assist families to feel supported and connected to their
communities is an important recommendation by several researchers (Vimpani 2001; Moore
2006; Zubrick et al. 2008). Supportive social networks are viewed as fundamental to enabling
families with young children to build social capital (Scott, Brady & Glynn 2001; Shaw et al.
2006; Fielden & Gallagher 2008). It is a hypothesis of this research that participation in
community groups, such as mothers’ groups and playgroups, plays a significant role in enabling
families with children aged 0-5 years to forge social capital and feel supported within their
local communities. Viewed through a social capital definition, participation in such community
groups could provide an opportunity to build social networks, social support, reciprocity and
trust. However, evaluation of such groups is still emergent and often the focus of evaluations
has been on the benefits for the children rather than the family more broadly. Therefore, it is
important to investigate the role of community groups such as mothers’ groups and
playgroups as conduits for families to develop social capital and connectedness. In this study,
the focus will be on newer residential areas where there is commonly a disproportion of
families with young children (ABS 2012a), a lag in physical and social infrastructure (Elton
Consulting 2012a) and where difficulties have been experienced in establishing and
38
maintaining playgroups (Sneddon & Haynes 2003).
Research on the impact of relocation and length of residence on social capital is garnering
interest but is still scant and commonly length of residence is used as a control variable rather
than an independent variable of interest (Mohnen et al. 2013). As indicated in the title of
Mohnen et al.’s (2013 p 33) article “You have to be there to enjoy it”, which implies, it takes
time and ‘exposure’ locally to build social capital. Length of residence and ‘intensity’ of
exposure to social capital was found to impact on access to social capital resources in Mohnen
et al.’s study (2013). Families with young children who relocate may feel isolated and
unsupported until new networks are formed through increased ‘exposure’ and length of
residence. With current increasing migration trends into and within Australia it is essential that
we have a broader understanding of the impact on social capital for families with young
children who have experienced relocation.
In this study, a mixed methods design will be used to address these gaps, to explore the lived
experiences of families with children aged 0-5 years in their local communities, and the
relationships between community participation, social support, social capital, wellbeing and
demographic variables. Of particular interest, in this study, is the extent that community
groups such as mothers’ groups and playgroups enable families to build social capital and feel
connected and supported in newer residential areas, and the potential influence of length of
residence. A triangulation of the qualitative and quantitative findings will add to a broader and
richer understanding of the lives of families with children aged 0-5 years in local urban
communities.
2.7 SUMMARY
This chapter contained a review of literature on the social determinants of health, social
capital and related concepts that are relevant to families with young children in local
communities. The changes and trends in family life, migration and the built environment were
discussed along with the impact on isolation, social support and social networks. Social support
concerns for families with children aged 0-5 years were considered, and commonly used
community groups and services for families with young children were described. Further
research was identified across three areas that were studied in this thesis: a mixed methods
investigation of social capital for families with young children in newer residential areas; the
role of community groups such as mothers’ groups and playgroups; and the influence of length
of residence.
39
CHAPTER 3
OVERALL STUDY DESIGN
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Within this chapter the rationale and philosophical underpinnings for the research study
design are outlined. The sequential mixed methods design that was applied in this study is
described, which includes the two phases of the study structure: 1) qualitative phase involving
interviews and focus groups; and, 2) quantitative phase involving a pilot survey and main
survey. The geographical areas from which the study participants were recruited are outlined.
Ethical approval and considerations are presented.
3.2 MIXED METHODS RESEARCH
Mixed methods as a research approach is evolving, and has grown in popularity and
application for investigating complex social science and health science research questions
(Tashakkori & Creswell 2007; Creswell 2009). Furthermore, as integrated research, mixed
methods is growing within interdisciplinary research and can benefit from the strengths of an
effective multidisciplinary team, such as when investigating social change (Hesse-Biber &
Johnson 2013). In this study, the researcher and supervisors, while from not dis-similar
disciplines brought a variety of methodological skills and expertise that added strength to the
mixed methods approach.
As an approach to research, mixed methods research is broadly defined by Tashakkori and
Creswell (2007 p 4) as:
“…research in which the investigator collects and analyses data, integrates the findings,
and draws inferences using both qualitative and quantitative approaches or methods in
a single study or a program of inquiry.”
40
There are a range of mixed methods designs. Common examples include sequential design,
where one phase informs or expands on another phase. For example, the development of
survey items is informed from the analysis of the preceding qualitative research. A concurrent
design is also common, where quantitative and qualitative data are gathered at the same time
and the findings are integrated at some point (Creswell 2009). Within these common designs
there are many variations, and as advised by Hesse-Biber and Johnson (2013) there is no fixed
kit or ‘methods bandwagon’ suitable for all research questions.
With the decision to adopt a mixed methods approach, researchers need to discuss and
determine the philosophical assumptions and framework that underpins the research
(Creswell 2009). A starting point is a ‘paradigm’ discussion. In science studies, a ‘paradigm’
refers to the “consensual set of beliefs and practices that guide a field” (Morgan 2007 p 49). In
the social sciences, paradigms are less singularly definable, which has created some confusion
and debate (Morgan 2007). For instance paradigms are also referred to as worldviews (Kuhn
2012) and epistemological stances, or can be used as a term to describe shared beliefs and
models of practice. In mixed methods research the paradigm debate is lively and ongoing as
researchers wrestle at the junctions of different worldviews, epistemological stances, beliefs
and practices (for indepth discussion see Morgan 2007; Creswell 2011; Teddlie & Tashakkori
2011; Mertens 2012). Indeed, some authors acknowledge a variety and growing body of mixed
methods paradigms (Creswell 2011; Hesse-Biber & Johnson 2013).
In this study, ‘paradigm’ refers to the epistemological stance taken. In determining the
standpoint for this study, two paradigm viewpoints were particularly pertinent to consider;
‘multiple paradigms’ and ‘pragmatism’, which are commonly used underlying philosophies for
mixed methods research. That there is no one paradigm viewpoint is reflected in the differing
positions on the philosophical underpinnings of mixed methods research taken by Creswell
(2009) and Teddlie & Tashakkori (2011), who are both well cited researchers in this field.
On one hand, Creswell (2011) supports the adoption of multiple paradigms that are
appropriate to the research design, where grappling with the research question requires a
varied use of methods in order to understand the problem (Creswell 2009). For example, a
quantitative survey could use a postpositivist paradigm, which is sometimes viewed as the
‘scientific method’ without the view of the ‘absolute truth’ of positivists; therefore, analysis of
data helps to build or refute theories but is never ‘absolute’ (Creswell 2009). In contrast, a
qualitative method may engage a constructivist paradigm, understood as knowledge
generated and accumulated through reconstruction of experiences and perspectives of those
involved; therefore, meanings may be complex and add different and richer insights (Creswell
41
2009; Lincoln, Lynham & Guba 2011). A similar view to Creswell (2009) is held by Greene and
Caracelli (1997) in their dialectic stance, where paradigm differences and tensions provide
broader insights within the research.
On the other hand, Teddlie & Tashakkori (2011) appear to be striving for one philosophical
foundation for mixed methods research, and argue that pragmatism based on the
compatibility thesis, is the ‘one’ overarching philosophical paradigm. Furthermore, Teddlie and
Tashakkori claim that it is the ‘methodological eclecticism’ of mixed methods research that
determines that appropriate methods are employed, and sets it apart from simply a mix of
qualitative and quantitative methods.
Morgan (2007) supports Teddlie & Tashakkori’s view of pragmatism as an overarching
philosophy, suitable for both qualitative and quantitative research, and suggests that
pragmatism need not be limited to mixed methods research. However, there are alternative
views on pragmatism, such as presented by Creswell (2009 p 10), where pragmatic “inquirers
draw liberally from both quantitative and qualitative assumptions”. This alternative view
(Creswell 2009) appears to be similar to a multiple paradigm approach where compatibility of
assumptions with different methods is assumed.
I have chosen to adopt Creswell’s multiple paradigms (Creswell 2011) approach as I have taken
the view that the philosophical assumptions of the qualitative and quantitative methods are
compatible within the overall study. In this study the qualitative methods were underpinned
by constructivist assumptions and the quantitative method by postpositivist assumptions.
3.3 OVERALL STUDY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
3.3.1 Sequential methods selection
The overall aim of this study was to explore how families with children 0-5 years build social
capital, and feel connected and supported within communities in newer residential areas, and
the extent to which community groups, such as mothers’ groups and playgroups, enable this. A
sequential mixed methods design (Creswell 2009) was selected as appropriate to undertake
this study, for a number of reasons as discussed below.
A sequential mixed methods design allows for analysis and findings of one method to guide the
development and procedures of the subsequent method in order to expand on the
understanding of the research objective/s (Creswell 2009). For example, qualitative methods
may guide the development of a quantitative survey tool such as in this study; however, other
variations can apply, such as focus groups to follow up findings from a quantitative data
42
analysis. As well as variations in the sequence of methods used, the number of methods can
also vary between studies within a sequential mixed method design (Creswell 2009). In this
study, I utilised three sequential methods. The first method of in-depth interviews and analysis
guided the discussion format for the focus groups (second method), and the subsequent
qualitative findings closely guided the development of the quantitative survey instrument
(third method). As noted, Creswell’s ‘multiple paradigms’ paradigmatic stance underpinned
this sequential mixed method study design as demonstrated in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 Overall study design
The sequence and combination of methods used was shaped in part by the importance of
undertaking a thorough scoping of issues relevant to families with young children aged 0-5
years in newer suburbs. Therefore, a sequential study design starting with qualitative methods
enabled the garnering of perspectives and experiences of parents of children aged 0-5 years in
newer residential areas. The subsequent qualitative analysis and findings ensured the inclusion
of appropriate items and scales (or exclusion) in the survey instrument for the quantitative
phase. This process is now described in more detail below.
Mixed methods research requires a design that identifies the ‘weight’ of qualitative versus
quantitative methods in the research design. ‘Weight’ describes whether one method has
QUAL
Interviews
Phenomenological
analysis
QUAL
Focus Groups
Thematic analysis of
interviews and focus groups
Phase 2.
QUAN
Survey Analysis of
correlations group differences
and trends
Interpretation and integration of findings
Phase 1.
Sequential Mixed Methods Design (QUAL QUAN)
Multiple Paradigms
QUAL = constructivist QUAN = positivist
43
priority or supports another method, or where there is equal weight (Creswell 2009). Equal
weight has been given to the qualitative and quantitative phases of this research (QUAL
QUAN) (Figure 3.1) as both phases were data rich with substantial findings.
In the first phase (Shown as QUAL in Figure 3.1), the qualitative data collection included in-
depth interviews and focus groups. Qualitative data collection and analysis were concurrent
during the interview period, and then again later when the focus groups were undertaken. A
phenomenological analysis was conducted with the interview data and a thematic analysis was
undertaken with both the interview and focus group data (the purposes of dual data analysis
are described in Chapters 4 and 5). The findings from the qualitative phase informed and
guided the development of the second phase of the study - a quantitative survey instrument
that was designed, piloted and subsequently rolled out. The quantitative phase of the study
included data collection through the survey with analysis of correlations, group differences and
trends using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Lastly, the study involved the
interpretation and integration of the qualitative and quantitative findings.
3.3.2 The geographical areas from which study participants were recruited
In the early conceptual period of the study proposal, an expression of interest to participate in
this study was requested from participants in the longitudinal RESIDE study (Giles-Corti et al.
2008), through a question in the fourth RESIDE survey. This resulted in 116 participants who
indicated that they would be willing to take part in a small study (short questionnaire or
telephone survey) on the needs of families with children aged 0-5 years. RESIDE is a five-year
longitudinal research project, the aim of which is to evaluate the impact of urban design on
health; in particular, the impact of urban design on walking, cycling, use of public transport
and sense of community. The RESIDE study initially included participants from over 70 new
residential estates in the Perth metropolitan area who were new home owners. Therefore, it
was good synergy to overlay this study within the geographical scope of the RESIDE study.
From the residential locations of the RESIDE expressions of interest, three local government
areas were selected for the qualitative research phase. The criteria for selection included: a
high proportion of families with preschool aged children (see Figure 3.2 for a map of the
proportions of the population of children 0-4 years of age in different localities in the Perth
metropolitan area), a spread across the metropolitan area, currently with active residential
development, listings of playgroups on the Playgroups WA website, and were within a 30km
driving distance from the Central Business District (CBD) of Perth. The three local government
areas selected were: City of Wanneroo, City of Cockburn, and City of Swan (see Figure 3.3 for
local government boundaries). Chapter 4 details the recruitment of participants for the
44
qualitative phase.
During the quantitative phase, in order to reach as many parents of young children in newer
residential areas as possible, the scope of local government areas was expanded to include all
local governments that had newer residential areas 15kms and further out from the CBD of
Perth. This is discussed in detail in Chapter 7 Quantitative Methodology.
Figure 3.2 Local government areas involved in qualitative phase
45
3.3.3 Qualitative research phase
The qualitative research phase had two components: interviews and focus groups. The
interviews provided rich data that also guided the development of a focus group discussion
guide. The focus groups explored further, the findings from the interviews. While fathers were
not excluded, the primary care givers and parent participants in the both the interviews and
focus groups of the qualitative phase were mothers. In addition, child health nurses and local
government early childhood staff were interviewed about their perspectives on the challenges
for families with young children within their work areas. Stages of the qualitative phase are
indicated in Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.3 Stages of the qualitative research phase
Interview data gathering
In total 12 in-depth interviews were conducted with mothers of children aged 0-5 years across
the three local government areas selected. In addition, in-depth interviews with three child
health nurses and four local government early childhood staff were conducted.
Focus group data gathering
Six focus groups were undertaken: three in the City of Wanneroo which had the largest
findings guided variable selection of quantitative phase
thesis and manuscript preparation
thematic analysis of interview and focus group data
phenomenological analysis of interview data
transcription and immersion in the data
select participants for focus groups
Data collection
develop focus group discussion guide
transcription and immersion in the data
select participants for interviews
Data collection
develop interview discussion guide
46
representation of families with children aged 0-5 years; two in the City of Cockburn; and one in
the City of Swan. A total of 22 mothers were involved in the focus groups, of which two
participants had also been interviewees. A total of 39 mothers, three child health nurses and
four early childhood staff participated in the qualitative data collection.
In Chapter 4 the detail for the two methods of qualitative data gathering and the two methods
of analysis is described. The subsequent qualitative findings guided the selection of the
research variables for the quantitative phase.
3.3.4 Quantitative research phase
As outlined in subsection 3.3.1, the sequential mixed methods research design enabled the
qualitative findings to guide the variables and subsequent item pool for the quantitative survey
instrument. The qualitative findings were also used in the development of an original scale
that measured social support available to parents from outside the home. This original scale
was called Parent Support Outside Home Scale (PSOHS) and was tested and retested during
the pilot and survey stages of the quantitative phase. The stages of the quantitative phase are
presented in Figure 3.4
.
Figure 3.4 Stages of the quantitative and integration research phases
The connecting between the qualitative and quantitative phases is described in Chapter 6,
integration of qualitative and quantitative findings
thesis and manuscript preparation
analysis of data
recruitment and collection of survey data
determine recruitment methods
develop online final questionnaire
preliminary analysis of pilot and retest reliability testing of new items and scale developed
retest new scales and items
pilot test questionnaire
check face validity
develop pilot questionnaire inclusion of new items and original scale for testing
47
which includes the variables of interest and subsequent selection of items for the quantitative
survey. Chapter 7 details the Instrument development, pilot testing and retesting of new
items, and reliability testing and factor analysis of the PSOHS scale. Recruitment, data
collection and statistical analysis undertaken with SPSS are also detailed in Chapter 7. In
Chapters 8 and 9 the results from the quantitative phase are described, and Chapter 10 is the
discussion including an integration of the qualitative and quantitative findings.
Pilot survey test and retest
Participants for the pilot, who were parents with young children, were recruited through the
School of Population Health at The University of Western Australia (UWA). In total, 73
participants completed both the pilot test (time 1) and retest (time 2). The pilot is detailed in
Chapter 7.
Main survey
Participants for the main survey were recruited through several avenues, which are detailed in
Chapter 7. The final sample of completed surveys that fulfilled the criteria of residence in the
Greater Perth Region and having at least one child 0 to 5 years of age comprised 493
participants. The details of the final sample are described in Chapter 8.
3.3.5 Interpretation of study findings
The qualitative findings are discussed in Chapter 5 as three manuscripts prepared for
publication. These manuscripts are listed in the Declaration of thesis publication on page (XVII)
The quantitative results are presented in Chapters 8 and 9. A discussion of the quantitative
results is presented in Chapter 10 along with an integration of both the qualitative and
quantitative findings. Chapter 10 also includes recommendations for further research and
policy implications. The quantitative findings as three manuscripts are under preparation and
will be submitted to journals for peer review following submission of the thesis.
3.4 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVAL
Ethics approval for the study was granted by The University of Western Australia’s Human
Research Ethics Committee on 25th October 2011 (RA/4/1/4958). In addition, an ethics
amendment was approved 22nd February 2013 for implementing the proposed survey
instrument and recruitment process. In accordance with ethical guidelines, a number of
information sheets and consent forms were produced for the research phases. Examples of all
recruitment, information and consent materials are in Appendix 1 (qualitative research phase)
and Appendix 2 (quantitative research phase).
48
3.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY
In Chapter 3 the sequential mixed methods research design for this study along with the
philosophical underpinnings of the research were described and summarised. The study design
was summarised to show the flow of the phases – 1) qualitative phase, 2) quantitative phase,
and interpretation and integration of the study findings. The geographical scope and rationale
for recruitment of participants was described. The qualitative phase is discussed in Chapters 4
and 5, and Chapter 6 connects the qualitative and the quantitative phases. The quantitative
phase is discussed in Chapters 7, 8 and 9 and the interpretation and integration of both
qualitative and quantitative findings is discussed in Chapter 10.
49
CHAPTER 4
QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to describe, in detail, the methodology employed in the
qualitative phase of this mixed methods research. Principles and philosophies underpinning
the qualitative methodology are presented, which includes factors and sensitivities that were
considered during the recruitment and data collection process. Interview and focus group data
collection are described and the two methods of analysis (phenomenological and thematic) are
detailed. The findings are presented as manuscripts in Chapter 5, and guided the selection of
variables for the quantitative phase.
4.2 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
“Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world.
Qualitative research consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the
world visible. These practices transform the world...” (Denzin & Lincoln 2011 p 3)
The quote above by Denzin and Lincoln (2011) illustrates that knowledge may become ‘visible’
and ‘transformed’ through qualitative enquiry, within a constructivist paradigm where the
observer is ‘located’ in the world that is being observed.
As noted in Chapter 3, investigators undertaking mixed methods research may select from a
variety of paradigms within their research design (Creswell 2011). Mixed methods researchers
using ‘multiple paradigms’ typically focus on the aim and objectives of the study and then
apply the appropriate methods to investigate (Creswell 2011). The methodological
components may be underpinned by different philosophical assumptions (Patton 2001;
Creswell 2011) as was the case in this study.
50
The following subsections will detail the philosophy and principles of qualitative research
relevant to this mixed methods study.
4.2.1 Philosophical assumptions
A constructivist worldview with apposite ontological and epistemological assumptions
underpinned the qualitative component of this study. Constructivism as a worldview takes the
position that knowledge is generated and accumulated through “individual and collective
reconstructions” that build “more informed and sophisticated reconstructions” (Lincoln,
Lynham & Guba 2011 p 101). It is inductive and values and respects the unique experiences,
perspectives and ‘truths’ of individuals (Patton 2001).
Constructivism is described as having a relativist ontological and a subjectivist epistemological
stance (Lincoln et al 2011). In qualitative inquiry, Creswell (2013 p 20) describes the ontological
assumption as relating to “the nature of reality and its characteristics” as it is seen through
different perspectives. Relativism refers to where the different perspectives may result in
‘multiple realities’ (Guba & Lincoln 1998). Furthermore, Lincoln et al. (2011p 100) describe
constructivist ontology as a construction of realities between the researcher and the
participant. Therefore, qualitative findings need to be presented so that they reflect the
different perspectives and multiple realities of the participants (see Lincoln, Lynham & Guba
2011; Creswell 2013).
In qualitative inquiry, Creswell (2013 p 20) describes the epistemological assumption as “how
knowledge is known - through the subjective experiences of people”. Of import is the
relationship between the researcher and participants. The researcher aims to lessen the
‘distance’ between the researcher and participant, which includes working in the field,
collaboration and including quotes as evidence (Creswell 2013). A constructivist epistemology
is described as where “researchers are shaped by lived experiences, and these will always
come out in the knowledge we generate as researchers and in the data generated by our
subjects” (Lincoln et al., 2011 p 104).
4.2.2 Validity and authenticity
The criteria for validity in qualitative research continues to be debated and to evolve (Lincoln,
Lynham & Guba 2011; Creswell 2013). Unlike quantitative research which has a repertoire of
standard statistical guides and tools to monitor validity, qualitative research principally relies
on the interpretive acumen of the researcher/s; hence, a wise researcher is likely to revisit the
process and the findings several times (Creswell 2013). Creswell (2013 p 243) acknowledges
that many researchers question “Did we get it right?’ – have we missed something?”
51
Nevertheless, Creswell (2013 p 243) asserts that it is the “strive for understanding” that
underpins all qualitative research. This, in and of itself, fosters an examining stance that
encourages the researcher to revisit the data and question the findings. Although there are no
concrete validity criteria for qualitative research, there are however, some important criteria
that strengthen its rigor and quality (Lincoln & Guba 1986; Lincoln, Lynham & Guba 2011).
Contemporary syntheses of qualitative validity (Whittemore, Chase & Mandle 2001; Tracy
2010) have resulted in a variety of criteria groupings. For example, criteria is referred to by
Tracy (2010 p 838) as the “shorthand about the core values of a certain craft” in her “big tent”
of eight criteria points for qualitative research. Tracy’s (2010) criteria include: 1) a worthy topic
that is relevant and timely; 2) rich rigor using appropriate theoretical constructs, context and
data collection and analysis processes – related to criticality; 3) sincerity and transparency
about methods and challenges – related to authenticity and integrity; 4) credibility through
thick description, detail, triangulation and member reflections; 5) resonance to a variety of
audiences and transferable findings; 6) significant contribution theoretically, practically,
morally, methodologically and heuristically; 7) ethically sound in all procedures; and, 8)
meaningful coherence of the methodology with the aims of the study and interconnects
findings with literature in the field.
On the other hand, Whittemore et al. (2001), in their review of qualitative validity, propose
two tiers of criteria: primary and secondary. Primary criteria, which includes integrity,
credibility, authenticity and criticality, are essential to all qualitative research; however, are
not sufficient alone. Secondary criteria, which includes explicitness, creativity, vividness,
thoroughness and congruence, are applicable in varying degrees dependent of the context and
research undertaken. For example, a phenomenological study needs to address the
explicitness (researcher bias), vividness (emic perspectives) and thoroughness (in depth data
collection and analysis) (Whittemore, Chase & Mandle 2001). In a similar vein, Lincoln et al.
(2011) refer to ‘trustworthiness’ and ‘authenticity’ of the data collected and the analysis as
important criteria that align with a constructivist worldview.
Overall, the above criteria were addressed in this qualitative phase of the study, as reflected
in: 1) a very relevant topic as outlined in the rationale (Chapter 1); 2) selection of suitable
methods for constructing social realities and human experience for families with young
children (for example, interviews and focus groups); 3) selection of the appropriate
interpretive/analytical process to analyse the experiences of mothers in their local
communities (for example, phenomenological versus thematic analysis); 4) recognition of the
relationship between the researcher and participants; 5) ethical and reflective practice
throughout all the procedures; 6) fairness with a balance of all different perspectives and
52
voices that were then represented in text as thick description and detail with interconnections
with literature (Chapter 5) and triangulated with the quantitative results (Chapter 10); and, 7)
a significant contribution that is practical and policy relevant for communities and services for
families with young children.
4.2.3 Naturalistic inquiry and empathic stance
This qualitative research was a ‘naturalistic inquiry’, which is described by Patton (2001) as
research that takes place in real life settings and without manipulation by the researcher. In
this study, the interviews and focus groups were undertaken in the familiar settings of the
participants, which was also important from a very practical perspective. For example,
interviews were undertaken in the homes of mothers so the interview process could adjust to
the interruptions and needs of families with small children such as infants feeding and
sleeping. Focus groups were undertaken in a room at the playgroup venue so children could
have ready access to their mothers. Interviews with child health nurses and early childhood
staff were generally undertaken in their preferred location, which was commonly their
workplace.
Early interviews of mothers were very rich in personal data. Therefore, it was decided, in
consultation with research supervisors, to increase the number of maternal interviews and
reduce the number of focus groups, which is consistent with an emergent design characteristic
of qualitative research.
In qualitative inquiry it is important to apply an empathic stance and avoid judgemental
proclivities. Patton (2001 p 52) describes empathy as the faculty “to take and understand the
stance, position, feelings, experiences and worldview of others”. An empathic stance
underpins the tradition of ‘Verstehen’, which can be viewed as the capacity to self-examine
and reflect on observations and interactions with others that results in an understanding of
others (Patton 2001). The import of understanding is expressed by Schutz (1970 p 168).
“…understanding (Verstehen) as such is correlative to meaning, for all understanding is
directed toward that which has meaning (auf ein Sinnhaftes) and only something
understood is meaningful (sinnvoll)…”
In this study, I actively sought to empathise, while retaining some neutrality, with the
experiences of the participants in order to develop an understanding and the meaningfulness
of their views and position. This empathic stance is discussed in more detail in section 4.6.
53
4.3 OVERALL QUALITATIVE PHASE
The qualitative phase, employing interviews and focus groups to collect data, was planned
using a qualitative description design as proposed by Sandelowski (2010). A qualitative
description design is interpretive; however, the “findings (are) closer to the data as given or
data-near” (Sandelowski 2010 p 78). Sandelowski (2010 p 78) argues that while qualitative
description is data-near the findings ‘are still detailed and nuanced’ interpretations. For
example, in this study a mother’s identified reason for attending a mothers’ group may be
initially for information and to meet other new mothers. However, several other factors such
as cultural, group dynamic and facilitation, and the parenting experiences of participants, may
influence the benefits or otherwise for members of the group. Therefore, researchers using a
qualitative description design need to ‘make something of their data’ (Sandelowski 2010 p 79)
which requires a rigorous thematic analysis with findings couched in descriptive interpretation
in text. A thematic analysis based on Creswell’s (2013) analytical spiral was subsequently
undertaken on the qualitative data of this study. The thematic analysis process is discussed in
this chapter (please see Section 4.7.1) and presented as manuscripts one and two in Chapter 5.
In addition, a phenomenological analysis was undertaken on ‘what it means to be connected
to the local community’. The phenomenological analysis process is discussed in this chapter
(please see section 4.7.2) and the findings are in manuscript three in Chapter 5.
The qualitative phase occurred in two stages: interviews followed by focus groups (see Figure
4.1). In each stage, recruitment, data collection and analysis occurred concurrently as
proposed by Creswell (2013). As noted previously, analysis of the interviews was used to
develop the discussion guide for the subsequent focus groups.
4.4 METHODS
This section consists of the theoretical underpinnings of the qualitative methods employed.
4.4.1 Interviews
There are commonly, though not mutually exclusive, three types of open-ended interview
approaches (see Patton 2001; Turner 2010): 1) informal conversational interview with no
predetermined set of questions; 2) general interview guide with a line of enquiry but flexibility
to explore areas (semi-structured) and; 3) standardized guide with exact wording and limited
flexibility.
54
Figure 4.1 Stages of the qualitative research phase (Figure 3.3 reiteration)
It was important in this study to allow interviews to be both conversational but also to follow
the line of enquiry: the experiences of being a family with young children in their local
community. In addition, it was important to be able to explore contexts and concepts that
impacted on participant experiences so that new insights were obtained and could be further
explored and understood. Therefore, a semi-structured interview guide was developed (see
Appendix II).
Individual semi-structured interviews use a set of open-ended questions that allows the
researcher to explore and ‘co-create’ with participants their varying perspectives and
subjective meanings of their experiences on particular topics (see Patton 2001; DiCicco‐Bloom
& Crabtree 2006). Open-ended questions are designed to foster the developing relationship
between the researcher and participant, and to encourage the interviewees to share their
experiences, thoughts and feelings with the interviewer (Patton 2001). An interview can be
evaluated on both thematic and dynamic dimensions: thematically as suitable for producing
knowledge, and dynamically as suitable for building rapport and a relationship within the
interview (Kvale & Brinkmann 2008). Therefore, a good interview question should contribute
thematically to acquiring knowledge and dynamically to promoting a good interview
findings guided variable selection of quantitative phase
thesis and manuscript preparation
thematic analysis of interview and focus group data
phenomenological analysis of interview data
transcription and immersion in the data
select participants for focus groups
Data collection
develop focus group discussion guide
transcription and immersion in the data
select participants for interviews
Data collection
develop interview discussion guide
55
interaction. The following question is an example from the interview guide developed for this
study (Appendix II).
‘Tell me a bit about what it has been like as a parent (new) in your suburb?’
This question allowed the participant to talk about many different aspects of suburban life as a
parent. With each open ended question there were prompts to either help the discussion or to
cover an area not already covered by the response to the question. Furthermore, excursion
into new areas salient to the interviewee was encouraged and enabled the addition of new
questions relevant to the study and fine tuning of areas to explore in the interview process
(see DiCicco‐Bloom & Crabtree 2006). In addition, individual interviews provided an
opportunity for the interviewer to explore personal matters and views that participants may
be comfortable talking about privately, which they may not have been comfortable discussing
in a group interview or focus group (DiCicco‐Bloom & Crabtree 2006).
4.4.2 Focus groups
In contrast to individual interviews, focus groups and group interviews allow for a broad range
of experience and perspectives to be garnered (see DiCicco‐Bloom & Crabtree 2006). Focus
groups are best when the group members are similar and interactive, and the discussion
amongst the participants yields insights and rich data (Creswell 2013). However, a focus group
is not a collection of interviews but rather a ‘single entity’ and the group dynamic needs to be
considered in the analysis (DiCicco‐Bloom & Crabtree 2006).
It is important in a focus group for the interviewer to the take the role of facilitator to
encourage discussion among the participants and to avoid the participants replying directly to
the interviewer or viewing them as an ‘interviewer’. A discussion between the participants can
bring new insights that are not obtained through one on one interview (Morgan 2004). Topics
that were very personal and raised and explored in the individual interviews, such as mental
health and post natal depression, were not explored in the focus groups to avoid participants
feeling uncomfortable or embarrassed.
4.5 RECRUITMENT/SAMPLING
The sampling approach used in the qualitative phase was purposeful for maximum variation as
proposed by Creswell (2013). Maximum variation sampling means that participants are
selected to provide a range of perspectives on a particular topic.
56
As outlined in Chapter 3, the initial source of recruitment was obtained through expressions of
interest (n = 116) from respondents who completed the fourth survey of the RESIDE project (Giles-
Corti et al. 2008). The residential locations of the RESIDE respondents helped to identify and select
three local government areas with newer residential suburbs located in the outer urban area with
high proportions of children under five years of age. They were City of Wanneroo, City of Cockburn
and City of Swan (see Chapter 3 for local government areas).
Initial contact by phone with RESIDE participants who had expressed an interest revealed that
many of the respondents were from families with older children. Nevertheless, seven of the 12
parent interviews were conducted with RESIDE participants. The five non-RESIDE participants were
recommended by RESIDE participants or early childhood staff working in the local government
areas, (see section 3.3.2 for qualitative participant sample).
Inclusion criteria for parent interviews and focus groups were that participants oldest child was
five years of age or younger and that they lived in a newer residential area. Participants were
selected to reflect a variety of: ages, number of children aged between 0 and 5 years, family
origin, length of time in Western Australia, paid work, community involvement, and home
ownership. However, as the settings were newer residential areas where homeownership is
common, only four of the participants were tenants. This is higher than the national average
where only 64% of families with the eldest child under five years of age have home ownership
(outright or with mortgage) (ABS 2013). All were dual parent families.
4.5.1 Interview recruitment
All potential participants were initially contacted by phone and if they were interested in being
involved and fulfilled the criteria, they were emailed a project summary, and a consent and
participant information form for their consideration (see Appendix II). They were then followed up
with a phone call or email, and a time and place for the interview suitable to the participant was
arranged and confirmed. Signed consent forms were obtained prior to the interview.
In addition to interviews with mothers, insights were sought from interviews with staff
working in child and family community services. Two double interviews (n= 4) were
undertaken with early childhood and family service staff employed by local government. Three
interviews were undertaken with child health nurses (two currently working in child health and
one working in a voluntary role in the community with young families). Interviewees were
approached, following workplace approval if required, and all consented to be interviewed.
Following the interview all interviewees were given a thank you card with a $20 retail voucher.
57
A total of 17 interviews (n=19) were undertaken – 12 mothers and 7 child health nurses and
early childhood staff.
4.5.2 Focus group recruitment
Focus group participants were recruited from mothers’ groups and playgroups which are
commonly utilised by many mothers/parents with children 0 – 5 years. Each focus group had
members from either the same mothers’ group or playgroup. This also enabled observation of
the interactions and relationships between the members of the particular mothers’ group or
playgroup. It was decided to recruit six focus groups from across the three local government
areas in order to reflect a variety of perspectives. While fathers were not excluded and it was
hoped that the few fathers in playgroups might be interested in being involved, no fathers
volunteered to be participants. Therefore, participants were mothers and were the primary
care givers of a child or children aged 0-5 years.
Potential mothers’ groups and playgroups were recommended by community members or
staff working in early childhood. The contact person or coordinator of three mothers’ groups
and three playgroups were contacted by email or phone, requesting interest in being involved
in the study. The contact person/co-ordinator consulted the group to see which mothers might
be interested in being involved and who had only children 0 to 5 years of age. All groups
accepted the invitation to be involved. Signed consent forms were obtained prior to the focus
group (see Appendix III). On completion of the focus group all participants and other parents
minding children were given a thank you card with a $20 retail voucher.
The groups were small (one had three participants which then became two due to ill health
during the focus group, one had four participants, two had five participants, and two had six
participants). Despite the small group sizes, particularly for the group of two, participants
interacted and shared a vigorous discussion with each other rather than just responding to the
interviewer. All the participants of the focus groups contributed well to the discussion. A total
of six focus groups – three mothers’ groups and three playgroups (n=28) were undertaken.
4.6 DATA COLLECTION
Data collection for interviews and focus groups is presented together in this section, as many
principles applied to both. The Interview and focus group guides are in Appendices II and III
respectively.
Following recruitment, an agreed venue, date and time was determined that suited the
participant/s for the interview or focus group. As described in section 4.2.3, interviews and
58
focus groups were conducted in familiar settings. All the mothers were interviewed in their
homes. The child and family community service representatives were interviewed in their work
places. The focus groups were either undertaken in homes for mothers’ groups and
community centres for playgroups. With the three mothers’ groups the infants were present
during the focus group. For the playgroups, infants were generally present in the focus group
and the older children were looked after by other mothers in the playgroup. These
arrangements were planned with the coordinators of the groups.
On arrival at the venue I introduced myself and adjusted to the ‘comings and goings’ of the
participant’s family, playgroup venue or work place. Once settled, and prior to the interview or
focus group commencing, information and consent forms were reissued if not completed,
ensuring all present provided written consent to participate. While a recording of the interview
and focus groups was listed in the information and consent form, I checked with the
participants that they were aware of this and agreed to it. Prior to starting the interview or
focus group I covered with the participants the purpose of the study and some background to
the research. Communication and information was presented in a ‘low key’ way to start the
building of rapport between the interviewer and interviewee or focus group members.
While control within an interview is generally viewed to be with the interviewer (Brinkmann &
Kvale 2005), there is also the view that interviewees have power through their willingness or
not to share information, or shifting focus (Karnieli-Miller, Strier & Pessach 2009).
Nevertheless, it is recommended that researchers need to consider the ethics posed within
these two positions of power; in the endeavour to create qualitative research that is both
transparent and provides meaning (Karnieli-Miller, Strier & Pessach 2009), and provides “thick
ethical description” (Brinkmann & Kvale 2005 p 160). For example, “phronesis” (practical
wisdom) about contextual factors and customs or rules that apply will assist the forming of
“thick ethical description” (Brinkmann & Kvale 2005 p 177). In this study, contextual practical
wisdom, which included building rapport, is discussed within this section on data collection.
I anticipated challenges in the role of the researcher during data collection. Specifically, I was
conscious that the relationship between the participants and the researcher was unequal and
weighted towards the researcher. In this study, this included the interviewer in a position of
greater power due to knowledge, control of questions and line of inquiry, and for some of the
participants a disparity of socio-economic status. It was important to dress casually in clothing
suitable for homes with small children or playgroup settings, and to demonstrate ease with the
normal ‘mayhem’ of family life with young children, or playgroup setting with children popping
in and out of the focus group room when they needed their mother.
59
I sought to build a rapport with all participants. DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree (2006) describe
four stages of building rapport between the interviewer and the interviewee/s: apprehension,
exploration, co-operation and participation. I feel these stages apply to both interviews and
focus groups.
Apprehension initially requires the interviewer to start with a broad open ended question that
is uncomplicated, non-threatening and easy to reply. In this study, the interview was
commonly started with the following open-ended question:
‘So, firstly, tell me a bit about when you first moved into this suburb?’
This included prompts about building or attraction to the area, and was kept at a light hearted
level to help with breaking the ice and initiating rapport.
Exploration occurs when the parties are engaged in in-depth discussion, and co-operation
signifies a shared ease and involvement in the discussion. Topic areas in this study included
family life as a new parent in a new suburb, community groups and social support and
networks. Rubin and Rubin (2012) advocate for ‘responsive interviewing’, which emphasises
building a relationship between the interviewer and interviewee through a friendly, empathic
and supportive tone that builds trust; avoiding confrontation or challenging the interviewees
views. I used active listening skills for responsive interviewing, which included empathy,
paraphrasing and clarification of experiences and perspectives, and a comfort with silences.
Empathy can be expressed through acknowledgment and reflection of the experiences of
interviewees. In this study, it included empathy with the joys, the challenges and experiences
of starting a family, and building a new support network and friendships in a local community.
While I am a mother with three grown up children I also endeavoured to build rapport with the
participants by sharing the odd small snippet of my own life as a parent of young children – at
appropriate times. The use of personal anecdotes was used to reassure participants, especially
where children’s demands on mothers were competing at times with participating in the
interview. I adjusted to the needs of the family and paused the interview or focus group as
required. In the interviews at this stage of rapport, sensitive topics such as difficulties with
other members of the mothers group or playgroup, or experiences of Post Natal Depression
were sometimes discussed. I took cues from the interviewees as to what was appropriate and
comfortable to discuss and explore.
Participation is a stage of strong rapport where there is the sense that the interviewee is
advising the interviewer (DiCicco‐Bloom & Crabtree 2006). An example of this in the research
was when participants were discussing group dynamics and the role of members in mothers
60
groups or playgroup in supporting others within the group.
There are, however, differences in the data collection approach of an interviewer in a one-on-
one interview and a facilitator of a focus group (as discussed in 4.4 methods). In the
interviews, I was face-to-face with the interviewees in a conversational dialogue and I
responded as necessary, but I was careful to allow the interviewees ample time to consider
and provide their thoughts and experiences. On the other hand, in the focus groups I
endeavoured to stimulate discussion between focus group members rather than ending up
with all the responses directed back to me as the facilitator. The point of the focus groups was
to foster discussion among members rather than a question and answer format. This was
achieved with some success but on reflection success was easier if the topic being discussed
was ‘near and dear’ and hence thoughts were easily expressed. An example of a ‘near and
dear’ topic for all the focus groups was ‘support’ that new mothers need, and a topic ‘near and
dear’ to one focus group was the challenges of having partners who were away from home a
lot due to ‘fly-in fly -out’ work in the mining industry.
Following the interviews and focus groups I drove around the local area to become more
familiar with the built environment of the respective community. On returning from data
collection, field notes were written and the interview process, data generated, and considered
topics for further exploration were reflected upon.
4.7 ANALYSIS
This section describes the theoretical underpinnings of the two types of data analysis
undertaken: thematic analysis (Creswell 2013) and phenomenological analysis (van Manen
1990).
While the two types of analysis employed (thematic analysis and phenomenology) have their
own distinct processes, in principle, both types involved concurrent and reflective data
collection and qualitative analysis as recommended by Creswell (2013) and as indicated in
Figure 4.2.
61
Figure 4.2 Data Analysis Spiral (Creswell 2013 p 183)
4.7.1 Thematic analysis
A thematic analysis (Creswell 2013) of the interviews and focus groups with mothers and child
and family community service representatives, total participants (n = 46), was undertaken and
reported in two manuscripts (see Chapter 5). Firstly, the findings on how families with children
aged 0-5 years build social capital, and feel connected and supported in their communities
using a social capital framework was prepared as a manuscript. This is manuscript one in
Chapter 5. Secondly, the findings on the role and extent of mothers’ groups and playgroups, as
community groups, in forging social support and community connectedness for families with
children aged 0-5 years were viewed within an ecological framework and presented in
manuscript two in Chapter 5.
An analysis spiral (figure 4.2) as prescribed by Creswell (2013) was used to undertake thematic
analyses of the data. Creswell (2013) advocates a process of analysis that begins with
immersion in the data and the organisation of data using initial coding planned for the study.
This coding can then be expanded to include additional coding for new concepts identified or
other information within the data or that may be relevant to the analysis. Coding is an iterative
process that builds on and responds to previous analysis and reflection. Subsequently, codes
can be reduced into ‘meaningful’ categories that help to interpret, describe and classify
themes. Classified themes are commonly representative of “several codes aggregated to form
a common idea” (Creswell, 2013 p 186). At the same time, analysis and interpretation involves
ongoing reflection and consideration of contextual factors that impact on the data, analysis
and findings, as well as comparison with relevant literature (Creswell, 2013). Lastly, Creswell
advocates the use of presenting and visualising the data and findings within a framework that
demonstrates the relationship/s within the data and findings.
62
The QSR NVivo9 software was used to assist coding into the concepts and categories of both
thematic analyses. Computer software such as QSR NVivo9 provides several advantages to
assist analysis, such as: coding where one transcript excerpt may be coded to one or more
codes; quick searches for sections with key words or concepts; and a visual demonstration of
codes and themes (Creswell 2013). Nevertheless, QSR NVivo9 and other computer software
are dependent on the sound qualitative analysis skills of the researcher that determine
appropriate codes and coding to be used. The analysis is described in full in manuscripts one
and two in Chapter 5, which have both now been published.
4.7.2 Phenomenology
“Phenomenology appeals to our immediate common experience in order to conduct a
structural analysis of what is most common, most familiar, most self-evident to us.”
(van Manen 1990 p 19)
A phenomenological analysis (van Manen 1990) of the interviews with mothers (n = 12) was
undertaken to explore ‘what it means to be connected to a local community’. The findings are
presented in manuscript three in Chapter 5.
Phenomenology has its roots in philosophy, largely through the writings of Edmond Husserl
(1859-1938) and then shortly after by Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) (see Dowling 2007;
Creswell 2013). While Husserl and Heidegger differed on some fundamental aspects of
phenomenology they were both interested in phenomena as lived experiences of people – or
as referred by van Manen (1990p 177) as “the essence…to grasp the very nature of
something”. Where they principally differed was in their worldview (Dowling 2007). Husserl
was concerned with positivism and proposed that researchers, whose studies are underpinned
by the philosophy of phenomenology, need to recognise their preconceived ideas and beliefs,
which they then ‘bracket’ or put aside to avoid judgement on the experiences gleaned from
the participants. Alfred Schutz (1899-1959) was instrumental in introducing phenomenology
into social research drawing on Husserl’s and Max Weber’s work on “sociology of action and
understanding” (Wagner 1970 p 1). The analysis and findings are then descriptive through the
process of phenomenological reduction. On the other hand, Heidegger was concerned with
interpretation and the central role and relationship of the researcher with the phenomena and
the participants with the lived experience. Heidegger advocated the use of the hermeneutic
circle, a reciprocal interpretive process that seeks a deeper understanding of the phenomena
being explored (see Dowling 2007).
Today, phenomenological researchers tend to choose between philosophical assumptions
63
underpinning Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology and his followers (for example,
Moustakas 1994; Giorgi 1997) or philosophical assumptions underpinning Heidegger’s
hermeneutic phenomenology and his followers (for example, van Manen 1990; Gadamer
2004). However, phenomenological approaches have bourgeoned, which has also resulted in
blends of Husserlian and Heideggerian phenomenology; confusion and controversy
notwithstanding as different disciplines seek theoretical best fit (Finlay 2009).
In this study, ‘what it means to be connected to a local community’ was the phenomena
explored through the lived experience of families with young children in newer residential
areas. I recognised the pivotal role of researchers/interviewers in reconstructing this
phenomena with the mothers interviewed so it was appropriate to adopt the philosophical
assumptions underpinning Heidegger’s hermeneutic phenomenology through the guidelines
and approach by Max van Manen (1990). The process is presented in detail in manuscript
three in Chapter 5, which has now been published.
4.8 CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter contained an outline of the qualitative methodology including the philosophical
underpinnings and theoretical principles of the qualitative research. The qualitative methods,
which involved interviews and focus groups, were explained in detail, and recruitment and
data collection was described. Lastly, the theoretical foundations for the qualitative analysis,
which comprised of thematic and phenomenological analysis, were illustrated. The findings
from both the thematic and phenomenological analysis are presented as three manuscripts in
Chapter 5.
64
65
CHAPTER 5
QUALITATIVE RESULTS
A JIGSAW OF THREE MANUSCRIPTS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The qualitative results are presented in this chapter as three manuscripts that have been
published. The three manuscripts explored three different but inter-connected experiences
and resources for families with young children in their local communities: 1) how social capital
is experienced and built within the local community; 2) the role of community groups such as
mothers’ groups and playgroups in fostering a supportive environment; and 3) what it means
to be connected to the local community for mothers of young children. Each manuscript was
submitted and published in a journal suitable for targeting and broadening the translation of
the findings to professionals who may have an impact on policies, planning and practice that
support families with young children in local communities, in particular in newer residential
areas.
Manuscript 1
Creating a village in modern suburbia: parenthood and social capital.
This manuscript is of interest to practitioners in health and urban studies; however, an urban
policy and research audience was targeted to stimulate interest in the impact of the built
environment for families with young children in newer residential areas. Therefore, to reach
the urban policy and planning audience in Australia the manuscript was submitted to the
journal Urban Policy and Research, which is an international journal with a focus on Australia,
New Zealand and the Asia Pacific region. It was accepted for publication 3rd September 2014.
66
Manuscript 2
Fostering supportive community connections through mothers' groups and
playgroups.
This manuscript is of particular interest to child health nurses who facilitate mothers’ groups
and other agencies who facilitate groups for families such as playgroups. Therefore, to reach
the community health sector, in particular child health nurses, the manuscript was submitted
to the Journal of Advanced Nursing, which includes a focus on community health research. It
was accepted for publication 21st March 2014.
Manuscript 3
The essence of being connected: the lived experience of mothers with young children in
newer residential areas.
Manuscript 3 is of interest to practitioners and social scientists more broadly. Practitioners
who may be interested includes social workers, community psychologists, family support staff,
child health nurses and others working in communities with families. Therefore, to reach a
wide audience of social researchers and practitioners interested in research and practice, the
manuscript was submitted to the Community, Work & Family journal. It was accepted for
publication 16th May 2014.
67
5.2 MANUSCRIPT ONE
CREATING A VILLAGE IN MODERN SUBURBIA: PARENTHOOD AND
SOCIAL CAPITAL
This is an exact replication of the publication but formatted for the thesis
5.2.1 Abstract
Local communities with good stocks of social capital nurture and support the families residing
within. This qualitative study explored through the perspectives of mothers, how families with
children aged 0-5 years build social capital in newer residential areas in Perth, Western
Australia. Parenthood generally increased the desire to connect to one’s local community,
which activated and enhanced social capital. Two themes appear to drive this desire: an
increased need for social support and an increased vested interest in the local community.
However, newer residential areas commonly have a lag of community infrastructure needed to
provide opportunities for families with young children to interact with other families. Urban
planning and community sectors need to coordinate to provide infrastructure and
opportunities for families with young children to connect and build social capital within their
local communities.
5.2.2 Introduction
Communities that support families are associated with better health and wellbeing for both
the children of those communities and for families more broadly (Freiberg et al. 2005;
Ferguson 2006). Conversely, a lack of social support and community engagement are risk
factors for maternal mental health problems (Zubrick et al. 2008), poorer infant health (AIFS
2006), poorer wellbeing more generally (Holt-Lunstad et al. 2010), and can be exacerbated in
vulnerable groups such as those who experience domestic violence (Capaldi et al. 2012). The
import of these findings is underscored by the transition to parenthood, when it is common for
parents to feel overwhelmed, and mentally and physically drained (Barnes et al. 2008); and
hence, represents a time of increased social support need.
Changes in family composition, employment and mobility, and increased cultural diversity are
among contributing factors to the shape and nature of current family life in developed
countries, including Australia (Poole 2005; AIHW 2009; Leigh 2010). Today, one in four
Australians was born overseas (ABS 2012a). Women return to the workforce sooner after
starting a family (Hayes et al. 2010) and older women stay in the workforce longer (Hazelhurst
2003). Collectively, such changes contribute to an erosion of traditional social support
68
networks for families (Poole 2005; Moore 2008). Furthermore, starting a family commonly
coincides with moving to outer urban newer residential areas (ABS 2012a) with limited
community infrastructure (Elton Consulting 2012a). This lack of infrastructure makes it more
difficult to establish community groups for families with young children (Sneddon & Hynes
2003).
Social capital is a useful concept for gauging levels of social support, community
connectedness and wellbeing experienced by families (Ferguson 2006; Zubrick et al. 2008).
Generally, research to date on social measures has looked at new parenthood and not across
the preschool years within the local community. In this study we addressed this evidence gap
by investigating how mothers with children aged 0-5 years, who are commonly primary care
givers and spend a lot of time within the local community, build social capital and feel
connected and supported within their local communities, in newer residential urban areas.
5.2.3 Background
Social capital - origins
Portes (1998) contended that the benefits of social participation and connections within
communities is a longstanding ‘staple notion’ in sociology, and argued that this insight has
simply evolved into the now popularised concept referred to as social capital. In his review on
social capital, Portes (1998) acknowledged the early seminal works of Bourdieu (1986),
Coleman (1988), and Putnam (1995) to have laid the foundations for contemporary research
on social capital - albeit vexed with complexity and a lack of clarity.
Coleman proposed that ‘social capital is a resource for action…within social relations…and
governed by social norms, rules and obligations’ (Coleman 1988 p S95), and along with
Bourdieu and supporters (see Portes 1998; Carpiano 2006) viewed social capital as a resource
for individuals. Alternatively, Putnam later referred to social capital as ‘the features of social
organisation such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and
cooperation for mutual benefit’ (Putnam 1995 p 66). Putnam (1995) proposed, along with his
proponents (see Kawachi et al. 2004), the view that social capital is a resource of groups or
societies from which individuals may benefit. While these appear to comprise two differing
camps of thought, Szreter and Woolcock (2004) bridge the two in proposing that Putnam’s
social infrastructure are the ‘wires’ while social resources are the ‘electricity’; which suggests
that one is of limited use without the other. Nevertheless, several authors (Bourdieu 1986;
Putnam 1995; Portes 1998; Szreter & Woolcock 2004) point out that embedded context is key
to understanding how social capital may or may not be accessible or beneficial. For example,
69
those who are socially excluded may have limited access to social capital available to others
less socially disadvantaged (Portes, 1998).
What constitutes features or resources of social capital has been captured in social surveys
with measures such as individual community activity, civic agency, and attitudes about trust
and reciprocity (Putnam 1995; Saguaro Seminar 2000). Following Putnam (1995), several
empirical studies have reported social capital as a protective factor associated with a variety of
physical health outcomes (Subramanian et al. 2002; Folland 2007) and mental health
(Nieminen et al. 2010a).
However, the precise mechanisms through which social capital influence health and wellbeing
are not clear. Harpham et al. (2002) and Folland (2007) suggest that social capital may
influence individual health and wellbeing through: social ties and support as buffers for life’s
stresses; trust and shared norms that provide feelings of security; shared information that
encourages healthy practices, and increasing responsibility of community members for
wellbeing of others. While these influences can be measured quantitatively, meaningfulness
may be best explored qualitatively.
Social capital and the built environment
The relationship between people and places has been explored through constructs such as
sense of place and place attachment in human geography and environmental psychology
disciplines (Curley 2010; Lewicka 2011). There has been limited dialogue however on the
synergies between place attachment and social capital despite the potential intersections
(Wood & Giles-Corti 2008). One exception is the work of Curley (2010) that found ‘feelings of
place attachment’ and neighbourhood resources, such as libraries, shopping centres and social
services, to be significant predictors of social capital. While ‘place’ is recognised to hold both
physical and social dimensions, it is viewed that the ‘social’ sits within the ‘physical’ (Lewicka
2011), which in this study is the built environment in newer residential areas.
Discourse on the import of the built environment as a social capital agent is very topical for
local communities (Macintyre & Ellaway 2000; Baum & Palmer 2002; Curley 2010; Baum et al.
2011; Ziersch et al. 2011). Elements of neighbourhood design such as walkability, street
connectivity and the presence of local destinations have been found to promote social capital
(Wood & Giles-Corti 2008). Yet as articulated in a recent report prepared for the National
Growth Areas Alliance (Elton Consulting 2012a), while some elements of neighbourhood
infrastructure such as street networks may be in place from the outset, lag in community and
social infrastructure is common, and non-investment is a template for creating social
70
disadvantage. As well as the issues this presents for meeting the basic service and amenity
needs of residents, there are potential negative repercussions for community wellbeing and
social cohesion.
Social capital – current thinking at a local community level
The setting for this study is the local community; therefore, it is germane to discuss some
contemporary researchers of social capital in local communities. Carpiano (2006) chose
Bourdieu’s theory to explore the impact of social capital on health at the neighbourhood level.
Carpiano (2006) proposed that social capital, as an actual or potential resource, consists of
four forms at the neighbourhood level: social support, social leverage, informal social control
and neighbourhood participation. However, Carpiano (2006) excluded social cohesion.
Other researchers, however, do view social cohesion as a feature of social capital (see
Harpham et al. 2002; Baum et al. 2009; Berry & Welsh 2010). For Berry and Welsh (2010) social
capital consists of two key and connected components: community participation and social
cohesion, which they also refer to as structural and cognitive components respectively.
Harpham et al. (2002 p 106) describe the structural components to include the level of
participation and networks as ‘what people do’, and the cognitive components which include
perceptions of social support, reciprocity, trust and shared values as ‘what people feel’. As one
in four families with young children report poor social support (Zubrick et al. 2008), the
significance of social support as a measure of social capital needs further investigation;
notwithstanding, that social support is itself a complex construct (Sarason & Sarason 2009).
Figure 1 illustrates a model to explore components of social capital at the local community
level for families with young children.
Social capital and families with children
At a local community level, links between social capital and benefits for families with children
have been reported through: opportunities to interact locally and to build social support
(Williams & Pocock 2010), high neighbourhood attachment with social control (Carpiano &
Kimbro 2012), local social networks and reciprocity (Witten et al. 2009), and through school
participation (Wood et al. 2011).
71
Figure 5.1 Social capital model suitable for families with young children
The importance of local community interaction for families with children aged 0-5 years is well
recognised, particularly in light of eroded traditional family supports (Moore 2006; Fegan &
Bowes 2009). Family programs implemented in community settings have been shown to foster
the development of social capital (Freiberg et al. 2005; Fielden & Gallagher 2008) with
evaluations indicating social benefits for mothers and families (Hanna et al. 2002; Kruske et al.
2004), particularly for vulnerable mothers (Jackson 2009) such as those who experience
domestic violence (Taft et al. 2011). Fathers of young families are likely to benefit from social
capital also, but this is relatively unexplored.
The import of the built environment and social capital through the lens of families with young
children, is gaining traction (Moore 2006; Witten et al. 2009; Williams & Pocock 2010), and
pertinent for a demographic that is commonly over-represented in newer more affordable
areas (ABS 2012a). Families with young children are potentially at greater risk of isolation in
newer residential areas where the built environment is often embryonic and with reduced
opportunities for local social interaction (Williams & Pocock 2010; Andrews et al. 2014).
Furthermore, relocation with loss of support networks can compound such isolation until new
social networks are established (Strange et al. 2014a). The aim of this study therefore, was to
explore qualitatively how families with children aged 0-5 years build social capital within local
communities in newer residential urban areas where the built environment is still evolving.
5.2.4 Methods
Design
The study design is qualitative description (Sandelowski 2010) underpinned by constructivist
72
ontology and epistemology, utilising one-on-one in-depth interviews and focus groups. In
accordance with a constructivist worldview, the data were explored and analysed inductively
and holistically within the socio-cultural contexts (Patton 2001). This was done to identify
important relationships, complexities and themes to provide a deeper understanding of how
families with children 0-5 years build social capital. Experiences and perceptions of support
and connections within their local community were garnered. The study was approved by the
Human Research Ethics Committee of The University of Western Australia.
Participants
Participation was limited to parents whose oldest child was 5 years of age that lived in newer
(established within last 10 years) residential areas. Sampling was purposeful for maximum
variation to obtain a wide range of perspectives and rich data (Creswell 2013). Initially, seven
participants were recruited through expressions of interest (n=116) garnered from the RESIDE
study (Giles-Corti et al. 2008). Reviewing the areas of residence among the expressions of
interest, three local government areas characterised by newer residential development in
outer Perth, Western Australia, were chosen to provide geographical variation. Participants
were recruited from nine suburbs (20-34 kms by road from CBD in Figure 2). These suburbs
were at various stages of development. Four suburbs were still waiting for shopping hubs,
three suburbs had shopping hubs still undergoing further development, and two suburbs had
only recently seen the advent of local cafes or taverns. Community centres, suitable for family
groups such as playgroups were present in only five of the nine suburbs. All the suburbs had
parks accessible by footpaths, however, amenities such as shade cover varied. The proportion
of 0-4 year olds in these suburbs ranged from 8.8 to 13.1%, whereas the proportion in the
greater Perth area, state of Western Australia and nationally is around 6.6% (ABS 2012a).
Family insights were obtained from the mother’s perspective. In-depth interviews were
undertaken with 12 mothers, including seven mothers recruited through RESIDE. All mothers
interviewed attended different mothers’ groups and the researchers were aware of only two
mothers interviewed who were known to each other. Six focus groups were recruited across
the three areas - three mothers groups and three playgroups. A total of 39 mothers aged 21-38
years with one to three children aged from four months to four years participated in the study.
All mothers had partners and six had moved from interstate and 11 from overseas.
Additionally, two overseas mothers had also moved from interstate. The majority were home
owners and had lived in their homes from three months to seven years. Further insights for
families with young children were obtained from interviews with three child health nurses and
four local government early childhood staff.
73
Figure 5.2 Aerial photograph indicating study suburbs in relation to CBD
Data collection
Data were collected between December 2011 and August 2012 by the first author. Interviews
with mothers were undertaken in their own homes at a convenient time. Focus groups with
members of mothers’ groups and playgroups were conducted in usual group locations,
including family homes and community centres. Interviews with the child health and local
government early childhood staff were generally conducted at their work-places. Additionally,
the first author spent time in the field to develop an understanding of the setting, context and
challenges for families with children aged 0-5 years in their newer residential areas.
Discussion topics for interviews and focus groups included: challenges of moving into and
living in a newer neighbourhood, transition to parenthood and its influence on ‘community’
life, how families build social networks and support in newer residential areas, and the role of
groups such as mothers’ groups and playgroups in this process.
All interviews and focus groups were recorded and transcribed verbatim and imported into
QSR NVivo8 for data management, analysis and interrogation. Transcription conventions were
74
limited to using punctuation to capture intonations. Rigor was enhanced with an audit trail of
field notes and data analysis.
Data Analysis
Collection and analysis occurred concurrently with continual reviewing and reassessment of
coding using data analysis as described by Creswell (2013). Thematic analysis (Creswell 2013)
involved the following steps: 1) Transcripts were read several times to ensure familiarity with
the data. 2) Transcripts were carefully scrutinized and questioned and coded into concepts. 3)
Concepts were coded into categories and sub-categories, which were developed from
scrutinizing concepts as well as from knowledge and critique of the literature. 4) Categories
and sub-categories were further abstracted to themes. In addition, categories were assessed
for internal homogeneity and external heterogeneity to verify meaningfulness (Patton 2001).
Themes were then reviewed, compared and contrasted with existing literature to illuminate a
deeper understanding of community connectedness and social capital experiences of
participants.
5.2.5 Findings
Social Capital Framework
Building on the literature derived social capital model presented in Figure 1, an expanded
social capital framework has been conceptualised (see Figure 3) to depict the themes that
support the principal findings. Underpinning this is an identified coupling of parenthood with
an increased desire to connect to one’s local community, which activates and enhances
structural and cognitive social capital. This social capital framework, as shown in Figure 3, is
used as a schema for reporting our findings and illustrates the pathway from parenthood to
‘creating a village’ in modern suburbia. In addition, following the analysis, we have extended
social support and reciprocity as both structural (‘what you do’) and cognitive (‘what you feel’)
social capital components. The following findings highlight the way social capital features and
resources can be activated and enhanced at the neighbourhood level for families with young
children.
Desire to connect to the local community
In this study, the experiences of connecting to the local community for new parents often
underwent significant changes from pre-parenthood experiences. Participants recounted that
prior to parenthood, local community experiences were often restricted by time spent outside
the community due to work, distance to work, being a newcomer to the area, and socialising
75
with friends and families elsewhere. While for some as pre-parents, connecting to the local
community was valued, overall the level of importance and the desire to connect to the local
community generally increased with parenthood.
The importance placed on connecting to the local community appears to have two principal
drivers: an increased vested interest in the local community, which is influenced by norms,
previous connections, past experiences and future aspirations; and increased need for social
support during the transition to parenthood, influenced by other social support and networks
available. These drivers appear to activate and enhance the building of social capital through
both ‘what you do’ and ‘what you feel’.
Figure 5.3 Social capital framework pathway for families with young children
Increased desire to connect to local community
Increased
vested interest
in local
community
Structural social capital: ‘what you do’
Increased need
for social support
Cognitive social capital: ‘what you feel’
Social
support Reciprocity
Trust and
shared
values
Social
action
and
norms
Participation in
groups and
networks in the
community
Creating a village
The built and social environment e.g. community centres and groups, shopping hubs
Parenthood
76
Participation in groups and networks in the community
For the majority of mothers in this study, it was participation in groups such as mothers’
groups or playgroups that made it easier to meet other families with young children in their
neighbourhood, and to feel more connected to their local community. This was particularly
important for mothers who had limited family support nearby and is illustrated in the
following quotes.
Once you are involved in playgroups…you start recognising people...like going to the shops
now...I bump into people that I know...you know…there is a sense of belonging... (Christine,
living in Australia for 5 years)
I think I’m part of things more...like...we joined the toy library... so I’m on the committee for the
toy library...and I think if you actually make an effort to join groups and get involved you feel a
lot more connected. (Jill)
In addition to the role that such groups can play in forging community connections for
mothers, fathers often got to know other families in the community through the networks of
mothers; such as illustrated below.
We went down to the Christmas concert and they (other playgroup families) were there…so I
introduced H to them. So… we all walked home together...and the Dads said to H ‘Next time we
go out for a drink join us’...so that’s how it (H got to know the other dads from playgroup)
happened. (Carmel)
A prominent theme identified through the analysis was an increase in the vested interest
families had in their local community as parents. This was influenced by past experiences of
community connectedness locally and elsewhere, including beliefs, values and experiences
from their own childhood. The vested interest also pertained to future aspirations for their
family in the neighbourhood. The vested interest motivated several respondents to actively
seek local friendships and networks for themselves and their children. This is encapsulated in
the following comments.
Yes, I think it’s (being connected to the local community) more important now that I’m a
parent. I hope to stay here and I hope that B goes to school down the road and we are always
going to be around these people. So…I think now more than ever…the responsibility is on me to
forge friendships and get involved... because we want stay here for a while…I have a vested
interest not only in my property but also...in the value of my life and the surroundings. (Coralie)
77
Well for me it’s not just living in an area...you’ve got to actually be part of it. You know…rather
than coming home every day and driving in the garage and living in the house...and then
driving 10 kms to the big shopping centre...but supporting the local shops…when you’re getting
to know your neighbours and getting to know and doing things in the area. So…to me the only
way to get more things happening is to support the things that are happening already...and
hopefully…more people will want to do things here. (Thea)
Influence of the built environment on participation
It was commonly expressed by participants that it takes time for the ‘social’ to develop and
opportunities are needed to participate in the local community. In newer areas, a lag in local
community infrastructure impeded opportunities to meet others. For example, mothers in
four suburbs sought playgroups elsewhere as community centres were not in their local area,
and this impacted on opportunities to develop more proximate social networks with others in
their local community.
The introduction of community infrastructure such as shops and services also appeared to
have a ripple effect on the social fabric of the local community. Once shopping hubs were
developed there was a positive impact on the ‘community atmosphere’ as described by
Coralie.
You can really see the difference before we had the shops and the pub and after. Like
now…come 5 o’clock…people are walking around…families are walking down to the pub…or to
the park after getting an icecream. So…you see kids on bikes…there is that community
atmosphere that I think the developers were trying to sell. I guess it happened what 6 years
later but…they’ve achieved that community focus. (Coralie, this suburb does not have a
community centre as yet)
The following comment by Eileen illustrates the ‘community connectedness’ she experienced
following a recent shopping hub development and local playgroup participation, now that she
has lived in the area three and a half years. However, Eileen spent the first 18 months trying to
find a home she could afford near to where she grew up, as she felt so isolated and
disconnected in her new area.
It reminds me a lot...when I was growing up...our community was quite tight...like that...and it
is more now…like how I grew up...and that is nice. (Eileen)
In addition, many of the parents enjoyed empathising with other members of the ‘parent club’
as illustrated in the following quote.
78
Becoming a parent has helped me to fit into the community...so...anyone who has a child...even
in the shops...I can talk to them about anything...like…they’ll come up to me...they’ll come up
to the baby...and it’s like...it’s been a secret club...like a parents club...and now I’m a member
of it...and I find just talking to people so much easier. (Dina)
Social action and norms
Parents of very young children are often consumed with around-the-clock care of their
children, and have little time for social action in their local community. However, a few of the
parents in this study were able to be actively involved, stimulated by their vested interest in
the local community. One such action with a focus on enhancing the local amenity
demonstrates how social capital can influence the built environment is described.
When they were putting in the shops and the pub there were quite a few concerns. They did
have a community meeting about that...so…we trotted along to that. That was just
something...going to a ‘neighbourhood meeting’ kind of thing! It was actually really good...and
it was frustrating because we all thought it was a fantastic idea (to have a pub) for the
community…and the people who lived close (to pub) were against...but it was still good to be
part of that. I guess it was a common purpose...a goal sort of thing. And it was something
that...we have chosen to live here and we will be here for a very long time. It was something for
the future and something that we believed in. (Brenda)
Social support
A principal theme that appears to drive the desire for community connectedness is increased
need for social support with the transition to parenthood. As a theme of social capital, social
support was viewed by mothers in this study as ‘what you feel’ as well as ‘what you do’. First
time parents often feel vulnerable and insecure with parenthood challenges (Nyström and
Öhrling, 2004, Barnes et al., 2008) and benefit from sharing experiences and support with
other families (Hanna et al., 2002). Many of the participants felt reassured knowing supportive
others who lived locally, commonly through participation in local community groups.
In this study, parents often expressed a need for ‘new’ social support – the extent of such felt
need varied however, often influenced by relocation, isolation and the scope of previous
available social support and networks. Parenthood also appears to be a time where past
friendship and support networks may change as illustrated in the following comments:
It was worrying knowing whether you were doing the right thing (parenting skills) or not...for a
while. Probably the main thing is...everyone (mothers’ group members) being at the same sort
79
of stage with their kids...and in life...I suppose. Like when you become a Mum...other friends
that don’t have kids sort of drop away sometimes. (Roberta)
The majority of the mothers in the study felt supported and connected within their local
community at the time of the study. However, several mothers, particularly those who had
relocated from distant suburbs, interstate or overseas, had in the past experienced isolation
and lack of supportive networks locally.
At the same time, for some parents, mothers’ groups and playgroups are not always a positive
experience or it may take a while to find the right fit. Group dynamics can be shaped by a
range of factors including homogeneity, diversity, parenting experiences and age disparities.
These barriers were also identified by child health and early childhood staff. Nevertheless,
such groups can assist some mothers who feel shy to get to know others in their local
community, and this quandary is illustrated by a mothers’ group member in the following:
I’m kind of shy...I like to keep to myself. Just like when I go to the gym or group classes...I go
in...I do what I want and then I go...like...I don’t know...it’s just the way I am...anyway...it’s
quite sad... (Why is it sad?) Because it would nice to know them (other people in the local
community)...to get to know them...if anything happens...you know... (Linda)
Reciprocity
Reciprocity in this study appears to be closely linked with social support, and experienced by
mothers as ‘what you feel’ as well as ‘what you do’. Knowing there was support and help
nearby if needed was very reassuring to the mothers in this study. Many of the mothers felt a
strong sense of support from and towards other families and neighbours they knew in their
local community. This was also expressed as what they had done or help they received from
others. This was particularly important for families with limited family support nearby and is
described in the following vignette.
When I moved into the area...like my next door neighbour has a dog...and I said ‘Hi, I’m your
neighbour...can I walk your dog?’ She had cancer at the time. And just from doing that for
them...we’ve become really good friends. And I’m really lucky… because my husband is away all
the time...and...like the other week I was really sick...and...I put a post on the mothers’ group
(Facebook)...someone helped me out with my baby...and my neighbour drove me to
hospital…and you know… if I hadn’t of done that...I wouldn’t have had anyone. Like I’ve got
these girls and I’ve got good neighbours...you know…they will look out for me. (Tess)
80
Trust and shared values
Trust and shared values appear to be drawn on more with parenthood through social networks
and more broadly. Many of the participants were concerned with trust, safety and upholding
good community values in their local area. The experience in a park of Angie (below), who
knows that other parents there (parents she may not know) will come to her aid if needed,
illustrates an experience of trust.
They (other parents in the neighbourhood) are friendly enough…like even to the point where if
you are at the park with another Dad or Mum and other kids…people will watch out for your
kids. You know… if they (your child) are climbing up somewhere and you are dealing with your
other child… and something is happening…they’ll go stand beside them even if you don’t know
who the kid or person is…just to make sure they are ok. Often I have experienced that.
So…that’s a good thing…you feel that there is support there. (Angie)
5.2.6 Discussion
Sociologists have long understood that it is the ‘nature’ of relationships that matter (Coleman
1988; Portes 1998), and where relationships are supportive and people feel connected to their
local communities there are generally benefits for communities and the people within (Baum
et al. 2011; Wood et al. 2011). The findings of this study bear this out, indicating parenthood
brings with it a desire for ‘community connectedness’ through increased need for social
support, particularly with others experiencing the same life transition, and an increased vested
interest in the local community. In response to these drivers, both structural social capital
‘what you do’ and cognitive social capital ‘what you feel’ are activated and enhanced.
Participation appeared to be the key feature that activated social capital in this study - from
incidental ‘brushing elbows’ to invested membership of a community group, providing
opportunities to observe, to interact, to build networks and to create a sense of living amongst
others, which is congruent with findings on what it means ‘to be connected’ (Strange et al.
2014b). As Edgar (2001 p 101 emphasis added) described, ‘social capital grows out of those
social interactions and networks we experience in our daily lives’.
In this study, the ‘what you do’ was commonly through involvement in groups such as
mothers’ groups and playgroups in which families participated in the local community, and
developed social networks and friendships with other parents experiencing similar life
transitions. The ‘what you feel’ was gained from such community groups but also drawn from
being a member of the broader local community and ‘parent club’. This underscores the
81
important role of such groups (Hanna et al., 2002, Jackson, 2009, Young, 2009, Strange et al.
2014a).
Our findings resonate with Williams and Pocock (2010) and Andrews et al. (2014) who
identified social support needs and shortfalls for mothers with young children in new housing
estates in Australia. Our findings are also congruent with a New Zealand study (Witten et al.
2009) where families with young children viewed the local community as important for
building social relationships, with success influenced by available physical and social
infrastructure. More importantly, Witten et al. (2009) found that ongoing casual encounters
fostered relationships, and collectively these features cultivated reciprocity and other social
capital resources. Wood et al. (2011) found that community participation was higher amongst
families with dependent children in another Perth-based study, and our study similarly
indicates a general increase in local participation from pre-parenthood for families with
children aged 0-5 years.
However, the ‘what you do’ and ‘what you feel’ appear to be influenced by the built
environment. There was often a lag in the development of places that facilitated social contact
with others, such as community centres, shopping hubs and other third places (a term coined
by Oldenburg (1999) to describe public places beyond home and work where people can
connect). Several mothers had experienced isolation on relocating, commonly compounded by
limited opportunities to interact locally. Furthermore, establishment and availability of groups
such as playgroups appeared to be influenced by local capacity and a lag in venues; findings
which are supported in the literature (Sneddon & Hynes 2003). In this study, as hubs and
services became established, participation and interaction with other residents grew,
heightening the perception of community connectedness for many participants. Feeling more
connected from observing other families ‘out and about’ in local neighbourhoods, is congruent
with Williams and Pocock’s (2010) study, as well as in Cattell et al’s. (2008) findings where
observing and mingling had a positive effect on wellbeing in the United Kingdom. Furthermore,
Moore (2006) views ‘observations’ as important opportunities to share parenting information
that benefits families. However, being ‘out and about’ requires opportunity structures; defined
by Macintyre and Ellaway (2000 p 343) to be the ‘socially constructed and socially patterned
features of the physical and social environment’. The quantity and perceived quality of
‘opportunity structures’ have been found to influence participation in local communities
(Macintyre & Ellaway 2000; Witten et al. 2009; Ziersch et al. 2011), supporting the need for
ensuring quantity, quality and timely development (Baum & Palmer 2002; Wood & Giles-Corti
2008), particularly for newer residential areas.
82
Shared values and norms, reciprocity and trust are viewed as important features of social
capital (Putnam 1995; Harpham 2002). Nevertheless, the inter-relatedness of ‘what you do’
and ‘what you feel’ components of social capital is recognised as a difficulty in their
measurement (Abbott & Freeth 2008). For trust, the World Values Survey (2006) question
‘Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or you cannot be too
careful in dealing with people?’ has commonly been used (Glaeser et al. 2000). However,
Abbott and Freeth (2008) suggest it measures trustworthiness of the environment, while
Glaeser et al. (2000) suggest that it may be predicting trustworthiness of respondents rather
than trusting behaviour; it does not provide any sense of how trust is experienced. Glaeser et
al. (2000 p 840) suggests ascertaining whether someone is trusting we need to ask for ‘specific
instances of past trusting behaviours’. Angie’s and Tess’s vignettes highlight multi-layers of
social capital, as their vignettes are about reciprocity, shared values, trust and social support,
which have been experienced in their local community.
Abbott and Freeth (2008) suggest trust and reciprocity may influence wellbeing by tempering
chronic stress. This is supported in our findings by mothers who expressed a ‘sense of relief’
knowing they have a supportive network of others locally who they can call on to help if
needed. In addition, trust was extended to other parents in the community, as illustrated in
the example by Angie as a parent in the park; though she might not know them. It
demonstrates trust as a lived experienced; a trust felt and drawn on. Angie described this
experience as supportive, which reduced the stress - when we have only two hands.
5.2.7 Limitations
Participants were principally homeowners (includes mortgages), reflective of 69% Australian
households (ABS 2012b). Due to lack of variability it was not possible to draw conclusions in
relation to socio-economic status. This dimension warrants investigation. It was serendipitous
participants belonged to either mothers’ group or playgroup. An extension of this study could
be to seek to involve those parents who do not use community groups or services, but
challenges reaching families who do not engage within communities are well documented
(Winkworth et al. 2010). The study sample was intentionally drawn from families living in
newer residential areas; hence some findings may be less applicable to more established
neighbourhoods, albeit many experiences and desires for connectedness and support are likely
to be universal.
5.2.8 Policy implications
Mothers with children aged 0-5 years, who are generally primary care-givers and commonly
83
spend much of their time in their local community, want to be connected to their local
community, to participate and to feel like they live amongst others. Social capital ‘grows’ over
time and our findings are compatible with a recent Netherlands study (Mohnen et al. 2013)
that found length of residence and neighbourhood social capital intensity had significant
effects for families with young children. This demonstrates an important window of
opportunity for government policy makers, planners and services to engage and support
families with young children to build social capital; particularly, in newer residential areas
where community infrastructure is emergent. While community groups are typically generated
locally they require suitable facilities and wherewithal to get them off the ground and
maintained (see Sneddon & Hynes 2003). We propose helping to establish community hubs
and groups suitable for families with children aged 0-5 years is an essential long term
investment in building capacity within new communities. It was the experience of our
participants that if hubs or groups were not available within the local community families went
to neighbouring community hubs or groups that were available. While that may be suitable for
short term gap provision, in the longer term it can leave a community without a ‘heart’ (Witten
et al. 2003). Baum and Palmer (2002) proposal of a subsidy scheme to kick start hubs in new
communities is worth consideration.
Early parenthood is a vulnerable time for mental health and isolation (Winkworth et al. 2010).
A recent study in Australia (Baker 2012) found couples with children lonelier than couples
without children and more so for women. In our study, parents expressed the importance of
having a local supportive network of parents experiencing the same transition, which helped
to normalise their experiences and reduced anxiety. Furthermore, the import is evident when
viewed in the changing context of family life through increased migration, mobility, and more
women in the workforce over the life course ( Hazelhurst 2003; Poole 2005; Hayes et al. 2010;
ABS 2012a).
Therefore, assisting families with young children to build social capital in local communities is
an important public health and policy objective. As a broader community, we need to ensure
timely development of community centres, shopping hubs and other third places within newer
residential areas so there are local ‘opportunity structures’ suitable for families with children
aged 0-5 years; to build social capital.
84
85
5.3 MANUSCRIPT TWO
FOSTERING SUPPORTIVE COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS THROUGH
MOTHERS’ GROUPS AND PLAYGROUPS
This is an exact replication of the publication but formatted for the thesis
5.3.1 Abstract
The aim of this study was to explore the ways that mothers’ groups and playgroups support
families with children aged 0-5 years and foster community connectedness in newer
residential communities in Perth, Western Australia. The transition to parenthood is a time of
increased support need. Changing community demography has resulted in a loss of traditional
support structures and an increased need for local community initiatives to support families
with young children. A qualitative descriptive design was used for this initial phase of a mixed
methods sequential exploratory study. Data were collected between December 2011 and
August 2012. Interviews and focus groups conducted with 39 mothers provided insights from
16 mothers’ groups and 13 playgroups. In addition, interviews were undertaken with three
child health nurses and four local government early childhood staff. For the participants in this
study mothers’ groups and playgroups provided opportunities to learn about parenting, to
build a supportive network, to forge friendships and a connectedness to the local community.
The families who relocated often experienced isolation until new groups and social networks
were found. Generally, where participation in mothers’ groups and playgroups facilitated
relationships with others from the local community, connectedness to that community was
reported by participants to be enhanced. Mothers’ groups and playgroups provide important
community development opportunities and appear to help reduce potential isolation for
mothers with young children. The findings are of interest to nurses and other health
professionals working with families with young children.
5.3.2 Introduction
Humans are social and communal beings and have not evolved to parent and raise families in
isolation (Hrdy 2011). This has long been recognised in community service sectors, and there
is growing recognition of the importance of interaction with other families as an essential
public health measure, to develop parenting skills, social support and social capital (Moore
2005, 2006). Community groups such as mothers’ groups (Hanna et al. 2002) and playgroups
(Jackson 2009) can provide such opportunities. However, there is limited research on the
longer term benefits of mothers’ groups and the focus of playgroup evaluations are often on
child outcomes rather than broader benefits for parents in local communities. A better
86
understanding of mothers’ groups and playgroups in local communities may elicit new ideas on
how to support families with children aged 0-5 years, particularly in newer residential areas
where families with young children often populate despite a lag in infrastructure and services.
5.3.3 Background
Parenthood is a significant life transition; a time often experienced by new parents as
overwhelming and emotionally and physically exhausting (Nelson 2003; Nyström & Öhrling,
2004; Barnes et al. 2008). Parenthood is also a time when mothers can experience isolation
(Matthey 2011) and loneliness (Baker 2012). Therefore, it is a time when there is an increased
need for supportive networks, yet data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children
(Zubrick et al. 2008) found that one in four families reported low levels of support from
outside the home. This may reflect the changing demography of a more diverse and mobile
Australian society with one in four residents born overseas (ABS 2012a), mothers returning to
the workforce earlier (Hayes et al. 2010) and older women staying in the workforce longer
(Hazelhurst 2003). Similar social trends have been experienced in the United Kingdom (UK)
(Fagan & Norman 2012) and United States of America (USA) (Bianchi & Milkie 2010).However,
Australia has twice the population proportion of foreign born of either the UK or USA
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2013). These social trends have
purportedly contributed to fragmentation of families and erosion of traditional social support
systems (see Poole 2005; McMurray 2007; Moore 2008; Bianchi & Milkie 2010).
Social support is a multi-dimensional construct (Sarason & Sarason 2009) viewed principally as
a ‘lay’ resource (Finfgeld-Connett 2005), and is defined as such in this study. Low social support
during the transition to parenthood has been linked to postnatal depression and low parent
self-efficacy (Leahy-Warren et al. 2012). Furthermore, social networks and support (Berkman
& Glass 2000), and social capital (Kawachi et al. 2008) as a measure of community
connectedness, have been linked to health outcomes; where higher stocks of these correlate
positively with better health outcomes generally.
Community groups for parents with 0-5 year olds
Mother’s groups
Mechanisms to bring new mothers together exist in many countries, albeit with differing
nomenclature and facilitating agencies. In Australia, the first group a new parent is likely to
join is a mothers’ group or parent group (Schmied et al. 2008), often facilitated by a child
health nurse, but in some instances formed through maternity hospital services. Child health
nurses in Australia have a similar role to Health Visitors in the UK. Weekly sessions are
87
commonly facilitated for four to six weeks, and are designed to provide information and
opportunity for new parents to share their experiences. Alternatively, open groups run on a
continual basis by child health nurses are available in some areas, and can be accessed as
needed by mothers (Kruske et al. 2004, Kearney & Fulbrook 2012). In addition, groups may be
run for those with specific needs such as teenage mums. Mothers are encouraged to continue
meeting as a group in order to foster an ongoing supportive network. While group facilitation
styles vary, it is recognised that groups are most effective when facilitation empowers parents
and fosters group interaction (Scott, Brady & Glynn 2001; Kruske et al. 2004; Guest & Keatinge
2009; Kearney & Fulbrook 2012). Furthermore, evaluations of parent groups have found they
provide opportunity for parents, mainly mothers, to form social support networks (Scott,
Brady & Glynn 2001; Hanna et al. 2002; Matthey & Barnett 2005; Fielden & Gallagher 2008)
and to learn from other parents (Kruske et al. 2004; Guest & Keatinge 2009). This is one
example of the role of child health nurses in local community development that has become
increasingly important but under-acknowledged (Borrow et al. 2011).
Playgroups
Playgroups also exist internationally in various forms, one of the hallmarks of which is the
provision of sessions where a parent(s) and preschool child(ren) attend together. Playgroups
have been operating in Australia since the 1970s (Sneddon and Hynes, 2003). They may have
evolved informally from mothers’ groups (Scott, Brady & Glynn 2001), be established local
parent-led playgroups, run by local churches or community groups, or ‘supported’ playgroups
with facilitators (Sneddon & Hynes 2003). Supported playgroups are run by a variety of
agencies, often for groups such as refugees, or in disadvantaged areas where there is limited
local capacity for parent-led playgroups (Freiberg et al. 2005; Jackson 2009; Young 2009).
Nevertheless, there is a paucity of evaluation on the benefits for parents (Young 2009).
Furthermore, newer residential areas have experienced difficulties establishing and
maintaining playgroups (Sneddon & Hynes 2003). While there are other community activities
for families, including library story times or toy lending groups, the focus of this study is on
mothers’ groups and playgroups, which are more universal in attendance.
5.3.4 The study
Aim
The aim of this study was to explore the ways that mothers’ groups and playgroups support
families with children aged 0-5 years and foster community connectedness in newer
residential communities.
88
Design
A qualitative description design, as described by Sandelowski (2000; 2010) was undertaken;
using interviews and focus groups to gather data. This formed the initial phase of the mixed
methods sequential exploratory study. This article reports specifically from the qualitative
phase to do with mothers’ groups and playgroups. Although qualitative description is a
naturalistic inquiry and requires analysis and interpretation by the researchers, the findings
remain ‘data-near’ (Sandelowski 2010). Therefore, the thematic findings are supported with
perceptions as expressed by participants. The qualitative phase of the study is underpinned by
a constructivist ontology and epistemology that recognises the unique realities of individuals,
different perspectives and the relationship between the researcher and the participants
(Creswell 2013). The authors are parents and the first author who conducted the field work is
also a registered nurse.
The study received ethics approval from The University of Western Australia and followed the
guidelines of the NHMRC statement on ethical conduct (National Health and Medical Research
Council, 2007).
Sample
Sampling was purposeful for maximum variation to obtain a wide range of perspectives
(Creswell 2013). Interview recruitment was initially from expressions of interest through the
RESIDE study (Giles-Corti et al. 2008). Interviews involved seven mothers from the RESIDE
study and five from snowballing/recommended to provide variation and rich data. As services
for families with young children are multidisciplinary, interviews with three child health nurses
and four local government early childhood staff were also undertaken. In Western Australia
some local governments employ early childhood staff to run programs such as playgroups or
drop in sessions for families with children 0-5 years. Focus groups were undertaken with three
mothers’ groups (n = 3 to 6) and three parent-led playgroups (n = 4 to 5) to expand on themes
identified from interviews with the opportunity for discussion on different views from a
number of participants.
Data collection
After obtaining informed consent, interviews were conducted in the participant’s home or
workplace, and focus groups were conducted in participants’ homes or community centres.
Data were collected between December 2011 and August 2012.
Discussion topics focused on experiences within mothers’ groups and playgroups, and included
89
transition to parenthood, social support needs, friendships and perceptions of their local
community in a newer residential area. Key prompts are listed in Table 1. Recordings were
transcribed verbatim by the first author, de-identified and stored securely to protect
confidentiality.
Table 5.1. Key prompts for interview and focus group discussions
Key prompts for interview and focus group discussion
What are the challenges of being a new parent?
Tell me about the first day you went to your mothers’ group.
What are the positive and negative things about mothers’ groups and/or playgroups?
How has participation in a mothers’ group and/or playgroup influenced how you feel
in your local community?
What were the challenges of relocating to a new area?
5.3.5 Analysis
Reflective data collection and analysis were undertaken concurrently (Creswell 2013).
Thematic analysis as described by Creswell (2013) was assisted using QSR NVivo9. Thematic
analysis involved close immersion in the data by the first author with ongoing discussion with
other authors and comparison with the literature. Data was coded into concepts and then
categories. Lastly, categories were abstracted into themes that reflected the variety of
experiences of parents involved in mothers’ groups and playgroups.
Rigor
Rigor for the study was enhanced through prolonged engagement of the first author in the
field, maintenance of an audit trail documenting decisions made during data collection and
analysis, documented reflection and analysis following each interview and focus group, and
meetings of co-researchers to discuss and reach consensus on data interpretation.
5.3.6 Findings
The study involved 46 participants (39 mothers and seven staff). Mothers were aged from 21
to 38 years, had one to three children, with children’s ages ranging between four months and
four years, and all had partners. They had lived in their current homes from three months to
seven years and the majority were homeowners (includes those with a mortgage), and were
either not employed, on maternity leave or in paid employment up to 34 hours per week.
90
Additionally, six mothers had moved from interstate and 11 as adults from overseas. Two
mothers moved to Australia (one as a child and one as an adult) from non-English speaking
backgrounds but both had fluency in English as adults. Mothers had belonged to mothers’
groups from four months to four years and/or playgroups up to three years, and this
represented insights from a total of 16 mothers’ groups and 13 playgroups.
As local community life is the setting for the study, the findings may be viewed using an
ecological model. Communities are ecosystems which are ‘dynamic’ and depend on interactive
exchange. As such, communities provide but also receive for mutual benefit (McMurray 2007).
Figure 1 demonstrates an ecological model based on Bronfenbrenner (1977) depicting the
embedded layers of the ecosystem. The findings from this study sit within the mesosystem,
which encapsulates the interaction of the microsystems of mothers’ groups and playgroups
with home, family, friends, local community and work. Additionally, exosystem influences such
as the built environment and capacity of services impact on mesosystem interactions.
Analysis of interview and focus group data identified four main themes capturing benefits for
parents who participated in playgroups and mothers’ groups. They are: learning about
parenting, building a supportive network, forging friendships and community connectedness.
As shown in figure 1, these all occur within the mesosystem and are presented.
Figure 5.4 Ecological model (adapted from Bronfenbrenner, 1977) illustrating four benefits of
microsystem interactions within the mesosystem for parents participating in mothers’ groups
and playgroups.
91
Learning about parenting
Mothers’ groups and playgroups provide an opportunity to informally share information and
practices about parenting, as well as be amongst people in similar life-stage circumstances. A
common statement expressed by mothers was ‘we are all experiencing the same things at the
same time’, which was echoed by child health nurses and early childhood staff. Many
participants had had very limited experience with infants and small children prior to starting
their own family, which acted as a driver to seek other parents experiencing the same thing,
as illustrated in Coralie’s quote.
I had never had much interaction with babies… So, I thought…well…I need that kind of support
structure so I could figure out ‘how to do this whole motherhood thing’ …with other
people…because mother-in-laws are helpful…but after a while you want peers of the same age
to kind of help you out. (Coralie)
While a couple of parents wanted one source of ‘the right’ information, most mothers
preferred a variety of information on parenting to consider: from the child health nurse, family
and friends with children, and on-line information. It was then common for information
gathered to be discussed with other mothers experiencing the same things within their
mothers’ group or playgroup.
As well as affording advice, participants generally felt that sharing experiences normalized
their child’s development changes, such as feeding and behaviour, and provided reassurance
and alleviated anxiety. The benefit of sharing experiences is also a focus of child health nurses
and early childhood staff as described:
‘The issues they (parents) have are quite common…but if you are in isolation you make it a
major issue…whereas it may be normal developmental change. And so it alleviates a lot of that
stress that parents have...talking about it with somebody else (another parent).’ (playgroup
facilitator)
Building a supportive network
The transition to parenthood was expressed by many participants to be a time of insecurity,
vulnerability and exhaustion, as they as parents adjusted to their changing and developing
infant. In particular, the very early days of parenthood can be fraught with parenting social
insecurities and fear, as reflected on by Brenda.
‘I think M was about three weeks old… I was petrified…I had a real issue with breastfeeding in
92
public...and of course he needed to be fed as soon as I got there. But when I got there (first
mothers’ group session)...there was someone else feeding at the same time…and it was ‘oh ok!’
(Brenda)
For families, the perception ‘we are all experiencing the same things at the same time’
provided a good foundation; albeit, the experiences of some mothers were less or more
challenging at times than those of other mothers in the group. Nevertheless, mothers felt
empathy and support for other mothers and this was generally reciprocated within the group.
Mothers expressed that it was easier to connect with others who shared similar social, cultural
and demographic backgrounds, and this concurred with views from child health nurses and
early childhood staff. Nevertheless, there were exceptions to this where diversity such as age
disparities and different relationship status worked well in some groups. For mothers who
experienced a positive group dynamic, the supportive network appeared to strengthen.
On the other hand, when a group did not work out it can be very disappointing, as explained
by Angie.
‘I was expecting the mother’s group to be my sort of support...because everybody tells
you...’it’s going to be fun and you’ll make such good friends for life’. You know...it was a big
letdown.’ (Angie)
For mothers who had limited other support available, support from the mothers’ group or
playgroup appeared to be critical, as reflected by Nicole.
I mean...a mother in my mother’s group said...’if it wasn’t for this group...I wouldn’t have got
by’...because she hadn’t got any other…people to go see...or any other friends that have got
kids... (Nicole)
In addition, it was felt by many mothers that mothers’ groups which continue to meet can be a
valuable supportive network when they are having their next child. New issues such as sibling
rivalry or new experiences with a subsequent child can be shared with the group.
Furthermore, some participants expressed that mothers’ groups and playgroups can provide a
supportive environment for mothers experiencing post natal depression.
Providing opportunities for mothers to develop supportive networks was another key
objective of child health nurses and early childhood staff. A reflective view is expressed in the
following quote:
(On mothers’ groups, playgroups and socialisation for families) ‘I think it is absolutely
93
integral…to that whole transition to motherhood for most families… because we know it’s
isolating…we know how hard it can be…and we know that if you can engage with someone
else…it helps.’ (child health nurse)
Forging friendships
Most participants had formed some friendships through a mothers’ group or playgroup.
Building friendships ‘takes time’ was a common view expressed. In this study, we have sought
to explore the ‘why’ of forging friendships for mothers with young children. For example:
‘It (joining a mothers’ group) is an opportunity as an adult to meet a new group of people.’
(Vicky)
For some mothers, strong friendships were sought with others who were at the same stage of
life as expressed by Leila.
‘So it was fabulous for us to meet…and I say us…because my husband catches up with my
mothers’ group husbands. It was a great opportunity for us to establish a friend circle that is at
the same place in their lives as we are. So, that is really important… meeting people that are
going through similar things that you are going through with your kids at the time…and
realise… yes…everyone has bad days.’ (Leila)
While mothers are more typically the direct participants and beneficiaries of such
groups, it was noted that it was primarily through the mothers’ group and playgroup
connections that fathers got to know other local families with young children. Several mothers
expressed how they encouraged their partners to get to know other fathers, to benefit from
their friendship and social support , as suggested by Judy.
‘For my husband...no-one that he knew...his friends didn’t have any kids...so for him I think that
was good. (To meet other Dads?) Yeh...other Dads and not just his mates and family.’ (Judy)
It was commonly expressed by parents that they couldn’t share these experiences to
the same extent with friends or family with older children, as they had moved onto other
experiences and had forgotten ‘how it was’. First time experiences for the family, such as
developmental milestones can be shared with an original mothers’ group or playgroup, who
are also experiencing the same things for the first time; a shared understanding that
strengthened some friendships. Furthermore, families who relocated often lost old friendship
and support networks, at least in face-to-face interaction, which resulted in the desire to
develop new friendships locally. Additionally, some parents commented on potential
94
friendships for their children forged through the parent social network that will help their
children’s social development.
Returning to work resulted in individual or group adjustment in order to keep in touch or to
continue in a different form. For example, evening dinners for mothers or changing the
meeting day or time to accommodate members.
Community connectedness
For participants in this study, it was principally through mothers’ groups and playgroups that
parents got to know other families with young children within their local community. However,
not all mothers’ groups and playgroups attended were in the local community. Attending
outside the local community was due to availability, capacity of local services and individual
suitability. Nevertheless, where the group enabled meeting other parents within their local
community, the experience of feeling connected to their local community was reported by
participants to be generally enhanced. Participating in local groups enhanced opportunities for
informal interaction locally between families of the group such as at parks and shopping hubs;
albeit, a lag in shopping hub development reduced such opportunities. The quotes below
reflect the desire to interact and to know others living in the local community.
‘I think you do need in that first year (to know mothers who live in the area)...just even to have
that...if you meet at the shop or if you see each other...you stop and chat…you still need
that...someone at the shop to say hello to...or now you are here...let’s have a coffee or...how is
it going for you?’(Jill)
(you feel more connected locally because of mothers’ group?) ‘Definitely…I wouldn’t have
known anybody locally otherwise...(and later)…we (mothers’ group members) are all within
walking distance of each other...I know of other groups where you have to get in the car. So
that’s really helpful...we can all meet at the park.’ (Samantha)
Relocation from other countries, interstate or just moving suburbs far apart, resulted in loss of
face-to-face contact with mothers’ groups and previous supportive networks. Families from
overseas or interstate commonly stated the difficulty in finding out about mothers’ groups and
playgroups they could join, or other family services. Seeking information online was common.
However, the delay in finding out about services and groups with suitable vacancies often left
participants feeling isolated and unsettled. This frustration was expressed by Charlotte.
‘It’s taken me...until I’ve decided that I’m leaving...to finally find this Mums’ group
(playgroup)...it’s taken me this long to find people. (You felt it really isolating?) Oh yes...it was
95
terrible...and when I was pregnant I was told that there was no mothers’ group for us...the
second time Mums.’ (Charlotte)
Participants who relocated between the birth of their first and second child were unable to
join a facilitated mothers’ group in the new area as there was no capacity to accommodate
older siblings. Experiencing the loss of a previous mothers’ group as in Charlotte’s and Eileen’s
comments was identified as an important gap in services by many parents.
‘I had a mothers’ group there and then moved out here when she was about 6 months old...and
I had another child… but when you’ve got a toddler you aren’t allowed to a mothers
group...(and later)…until I had the playgroup...I’d go on the internet... once a week...looking at
buying or moving back to closer to family.’ (Eileen)
In this study, participation in a mothers’ group or playgroup generally augmented the
experiences of interacting with others locally and building a sense of community
connectedness Thea’s endeavour to connect locally was explained.
It’s going to take a while…and basically…the more I go there (playgroup) …the better...the
more I feel connected (locally). That’s why I’ll go every week. I’ll continue going because I want
to get to know the Mums better…in the actual local area I want to get to know Mums... (Thea)
5.3.7 Discussion
This study explored experiences and benefits of participation in mothers’ groups and
playgroups for families with children aged 0-5 years. Derived benefits were grouped into four
themes: learning about parenting, building a supportive network, forging friendships and
community connectedness. The findings informed an adaptation of Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological model (Figure 1) with a focus on the mesosystem.
Ecological models highlight upstream and downstream influences across systems (Sanson &
Stanley 2010) which can influence how families’ access or benefit from groups such as the
ones examined in this study. For example, in our study, the availability of community groups
locally was influenced by exosystem factors such as the built environment which is emergent
in newer residential areas (Tomlinson 2012), and services with capacity for mothers’ groups
and playgroups. Downstream influences include support available from other microsystems
such as family.
Family relocation either from overseas, interstate or from a distance appeared to be a risk
factor for isolation and inadequate support; at least until new social supportive networks were
96
formed. Additionally, for several participants, relocation after the family had been started
resulted in the loss of a supportive mothers’ group, inability to join another local mothers’
group, or their infants were too young for available playgroups in their new area. In this study,
lack of a mothers’ group for second time mothers who had relocated was identified as a
service gap.
Mothers in this study generally had limited prior experience with infants, hence mothers’
group or playgroups were commonly referred to as settings where parenting information
could be sourced and shared. This is consistent with Walker’s (2012) study where parents
gathered information - ‘building a case’ and then ‘weighing’ and ‘validating’ the information
with those trusted, who were not necessarily an ‘authoritative source’. Needing reassurance
on parenting was identified by Walker (2012) as a prominent motivator for information
seeking.
Social support is recognised as a bidirectional concept and process (Sarason and Sarason,
2009), in this case between members of the group, and viewed as having two principal
dimensions: emotional and instrumental support (House, Umberson & Landis 1988; Finfgeld-
Connett 2005). In this study, both emotional and instrumental support appeared to be
experienced within the groups. The extent to which social support was drawn from within
groups was commonly dependent on other support available, with those without family or
other social networks deriving more support through the groups. Furthermore, participants
stated that social support provided within the groups commonly reduced their parental
anxiety. These findings are congruent with other research that has identified the importance of
social support in peer learning and building confidence for parents in various contexts,
including new mothers (Kruske et al. 2004; Leahy-Warren 2005), long term mothers’ groups
(Scott, Brady & Glynn 2001), and supported or parent-led playgroups (Powell 2005; Jackson
2011; Berthelsen et al. 2012). This highlights the benefits of sharing and receiving support from
others who are ‘experiencing the same things at the same time’ and who can empathise with
the challenges of being a new parent. Additionally, this was also expressed by participants to
be a driver for forging friendships with others at the same stage of life.
The relationship between social support, social capital (as a measure of community
connectedness) and wellbeing has been reported by others (for discussion see Szreter &
Woolcock 2004), although not often considered explicitly from a parent perspective (Wood et
al. 2011). In this study mothers’ groups and playgroups helped to build social support and
community connectedness within local communities. Groups attended were not always locally
placed; albeit, locations needed to be within a suitable travelling distance for families with
97
small children. However, when group participation facilitated relationships with others living
nearby, connectedness to the local community was generally enhanced. Furthermore, several
participants expressed that attending groups held within their local community increased their
sense of connectedness to their local area. This relationship between locally placed mothers’
groups and playgroups and connectedness to the local community has not been explored
before in the published literature to our knowledge.
There are challenges in evaluating initiatives that aim to increase social support and
community connectedness for families with young children, and in some studies, ‘forging
friendships’ has been limited to broader notions of social networks (Scott, Brady & Glynn 2001;
Hanna et al. 2002) or illuminated in comments by participants (Berthelsen et al. 2012). The
evaluation of PRISM (Program of Resources, Information and Support for Mothers)(Lumley et
al. 2006), a randomised control trial on strategies to provide ‘befriending’ opportunities in
local communities for first time parents, had no demonstrable impact in the intervention area
at six months. However, individual feedback from participants indicated that the intervention
enabled the forging of friendships (Small et al. 2011). The authors (Lumley et al. 2006; Small et
al. 2011) did not consider the resourcefulness of mothers who, as in our study, looked beyond
their locality for opportunities to connect with other mothers.
Congruent with other authors (Scott, Brady & Glynn 2001; Hanna et al. 2002), participants in
this study found it easier to connect with others from a similar background, however, some
diversity seemed to bring additional benefit to some groups. Nevertheless, some mothers
sought alternative groups if they experienced incompatibility or exclusion, which is consistent
with Mulcahy et al. (2010) who reported exclusion, judgment and conformity as playgroup
barriers for some parents. Furthermore, a shift in focus from the parent’s to the child’s needs
was found by Jones et al. (2010), in their study of playgroups, which will also influence what
groups parents decide to join.
The view ‘it takes time’ to make friends was commonly expressed in our study: a good
argument for providing ‘befriending’ opportunities locally in the antenatal period. Meeting
other ‘mothers to be’ locally may also help to reduce isolation and anxiety in the early post
natal period. Mother’s seeking other mothers to learn from and be supported by is as intuitive
as it is traditional (Nelson 2003; Hrdy 2011). Hrdy (2011) a socio-biologist, views co-operative
parenting as our ancient heritage; acquired for human survival. In other words, parents
fundamentally need other parents to draw on - it takes a ‘village’. Hrdy (2011) posits that
through evolutionary adaptation humans developed empathy, which preceded alloparenting
(co-operative parenting), and that we need to nurture both empathy and alloparenting traits;
98
or risk their weakening. Findings from this study highlight how groups such as mothers’ groups
and playgroups can provide an environment that nurtures both empathy and alloparenting in a
modern world where traditional family supports have significantly diminished.
5.3.8 Limitations
As all participants in the study had current partners, the findings do not capture the
experiences of single mothers. The majority of the mothers in this study were older than 25
years, and although this is congruent with the average age profile of Australian mothers (Hayes
et al. 2010), it means that the views of younger mothers (< 25 years) were not obtained.
Anecdotally it was generally noted by participants that younger, single mothers and those
from non-English speaking backgrounds were less likely to join or stay with a mothers group or
playgroup, hence the difficulty of recruiting such participants. As such, future research with
these women is warranted.
5.3.9 Conclusion
Our findings have implications for child health nurses and allied professionals who are
increasingly working in a more multifaceted environment with diverse population groups who
have complex needs (Sanson & Stanley 2010; Borrow et al. 2011). Community development is
an important role for child health nurses in Australia (Borrow et al. 2011) and the UK (Piper
2011; Coverdale 2012). However and importantly, child health nurses feel under-resourced to
meet these challenges (Borrow et al. 2011; Coverdale 2012). Nevertheless, child health nurses
are well placed to work within an ecological framework with other allied professionals and
local government to plan and advocate for improved community infrastructure and services,
particularly in newer residential areas where there is a lag in establishing community
infrastructure and services (Sneddon & Hynes 2003; Tomlinson 2012).
Providing group opportunities for social interaction is an important community development
role for child health nurses that could benefit from being strengthened. Providing
opportunities to interact socially is a public health measure in need of a renaissance, and is
crucial in supporting families with preschool children. This recommendation aligns with views
of leading Australian community and child health professionals (Vimpani 2001; Baum & Palmer
2002; Moore 2005; 2006; 2008; Zubrick et al. 2008). The import of the potential benefits of
mothers’ groups and playgroups for families in a world of migration and eroded traditional
support systems is evident.
99
5.4 MANUSCRIPT THREE
THE ESSENCE OF BEING CONNECTED: THE LIVED EXPERIENCE OF
MOTHERS WITH YOUNG CHILDREN IN NEWER RESIDENTIAL
AREAS
This is an exact replication of the publication but formatted for the thesis
5.4.1 Abstract
Parenthood is a significant life transition and a time of increased social support need. In newer
residential areas, a lag in social infrastructure and family relocation can influence potential
isolation of families with young children. This qualitative study explored the lived experiences
of being connected to local communities for mothers with children aged 0-5 years of age.
Family insights were obtained through in-depth interviews with 12 mothers who were primary
caregivers, homeowners and living in newer residential areas in outer suburban Perth,
Western Australia.
For mothers with young children, being connected to the local community appears to be
shaped from their past and present lived experience as well as future aspirations.
Connectedness evolves and may develop more slowly in newer communities where social
relationships and networks are often recently formed. ‘Interaction’,’ knowing what’s going on’
and ‘help is nearby if you need it’ were identified as the essential themes of connectedness for
mothers and families in this study. Belonging was identified as an incidental theme as not all
mothers who felt connected felt like they belonged. The findings provide insight for
professionals and agencies working with families with young children as well as planners of
newer residential areas.
5.4.2 Introduction
It is purported in the literature that being connected to your local community is good for your
health and wellbeing (Berkman & Glass 2000; Lomas 1998; Ziersch et al. 2005). Indeed the
provision of opportunities for people and families to socially interact locally is argued by Lomas
(1998) to be a fundamental public health measure. Similarly, Moore (2006) argues that
opportunities to interact are essential in supporting families with pre-school children in our
local communities. Starting a family is a period of significant life transition; a time when the
need for social support is increased and mothers may experience a sense of unpreparedness,
isolation and exhaustion (Barclay et al. 1997). It is also a time in life that often coincides with
moving to newer residential areas as indicated by the high proportion of 0 – 4 years olds in
100
many newer residential areas (ABS 2012a). At the same time, in newer residential areas there
is often a lag in the establishment of services and community groups that enable families with
young children to interact and foster support with other families (Sneddon & Hynes 2003).
Even in older neighbourhoods, opportunities to interact can vary markedly, and are influenced
by the social and built environment, along with service output provided by government and
community agencies (Wood et al. 2012). In addition, societal changes such as work mobility
and scattered family networks have eroded many traditional support systems available.
The study described in this paper, explored the lived experiences for mothers and families with
children aged 0 – 5 years of age, of being ‘connected’ to their local community in newer
residential areas; to date, an area of limited research.
5.4.3 Background
Community connectedness matters; and we are being encouraged to reawaken its import
(Leigh 2010; Mackay 2009; Obst, Smith & Zinkiewicz 2002; Putnam 2000; Tanner 2003).
Putnam’s seminal work (1995a 1995b 2000) on social capital attributed an erosion of social
connectedness in American society to a mix of social and technological changes. While these
changes may have improved individual freedom, Putman argues we need to closely reflect on
and address the fall in social engagement. As well as a growing interest in community
connectedness in academic literature, it has been topical in social commentary over the last
decade. Mackay (1999 2009), a social psychologist and commentator encourages ‘us’ to pay
attention and connect or reconnect within our communities to avoid a ‘nightmare’ scenario of
a society fragmented and alienated. At the same time, Tanner (2003) purports that there
needs to be rigorous political discourse on government decisions that impact on our
communities and relationships. In the health literature, there is internationally, a clarion call
for action on the associations between health: and social determinants such as social support
and exclusion (Berkman & Glass 2000; Marmot 2005); and related concepts of community
connectedness such as social cohesiveness (Baum et al. 2009; Vimpani 2001) and social capital
(Baum et al. 2000; Kawachi et al. 2008).
In Australia, there is recent evidence that community connectedness is declining (Leigh, 2010).
Leigh (2010) drawing on social surveys from 1984 and 2005, contends that we are more
disconnected; we interact less with our neighbours and we have fewer friends than in the past.
In addition and more critically, findings from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children
(LSAC) found that one in four parents of young children report poor social support (Zubrick et
al. 2008), and 25% of mothers have neither someone to confide in all or most of the time, nor
weekly contact with friends, and fathers fare worse (Australian Institute of Family Studies
101
[AIFS], 2009). The gravity of these statistics is supported by research findings, where a lack of
social support and poor community engagement have been linked to maternal mental health
problems (Mulvaney & Kendrick 2005; Zubrick et al. 2008) and poorer infant health (AIFS 2006)
and development outcomes for children (Mensah & Kiernan 2010; Robinson et al. 2008). Thus,
there are challenges to provide opportunities that help people connect to their communities,
in particular for families with young children; to enable them to forge socially supportive
networks.
Community connectedness and related concepts
Community connectedness is a concept also embodied in leading social capital research
(Harpham et al. 2002; Onyx & Bullen 2000; Putnam 1995a; Saguaro Seminar 2000; Stone 2001)
where social capital measures may assist gauging the level of community connectedness in a
population. Putnam refers to ‘social capital’ and ‘community’ as “conceptual cousins” (2000 p
21) while Harpham et al. (2002 p 106) define social capital to be “the degree of connectedness
and the quality and quantity of social relations in a given population”. Thus, both the quality
and quantity of social connections will impact the resources available to a person, group or
community. It is important to note that social capital is not ‘place bound,’(Wood & Giles-Corti
2008) and that social life and therefore ’community’ may be external to the neighbourhood
(Stephens 2008). However, when we speak of community connectedness, it is typically
conceived to apply locally to a ‘place’, which may also be the primary community for those
whose circumstances render them less mobile, such as families with young children.
The term ‘sense of community’ may be another way of viewing ‘community connectedness’.
With its origins in community psychology, but also a term used in public health (Stephens,
2008), ‘sense of community’ is defined by Sarason (1974, p. 157) as:
“The perception of similarity to others, an acknowledged interdependence with others,
a willingness to maintain this interdependence by giving to or doing for others what
one expects from them, and the feeling that one is part of a larger dependable and
stable structure.”
It is interesting to note that this definition appears to have reciprocity, trust and norms
embedded within, which are features of social capital as purported by Putnam (2000).
However, it is the theoretical framework for ‘sense of community’ by McMillan and Chavis
(1986) that is more widely cited (Lochner et al. 1999; Pooley et al. 2005). McMillan and Chavis
(1986) propose four theoretical dimensions: 1) membership is a sense of belonging or a
personal relatedness, 2) influence is a sense of mattering and making a difference within the
102
group, 3) integration where members’ needs are being met, and 4) shared emotional
connections through history and experiences. While McMillan and Chavis (1986) propose that
their theory and definition equally applies to geographical and social communities, the co-
researchers in Bellefeuille’s thesis (2005 p 148) felt that ‘sense of community’ is “more where
one’s mind connects than where one’s body reside”’. We feel that the terms, ‘sense of
community’ and ‘community connectedness’ could almost be used interchangeably if they are
both referring to a ‘community’ of social relationships; however, community connectedness as
measured empirically (Baum et al. 2009; Onyx & Bullen 2000; Saguaro Seminar 2000) suggests
the community setting of where we reside, which includes the social and physical
neighbourhood.
Rationale
Research on community connectedness to date has been predominantly quantitative, and this
impedes deeper understanding of the complexity of connectedness for individuals and local
communities (Harpham et al. 2002). Harpham et al. (2002) and Svendsen (2006) advocate the
need for qualitative methods in the areas of social capital in order to find meaning and
knowledge on how social capital is built ‘in situ’. Community connectedness, whether viewed
through the related concepts of social capital or sense of community, requires qualitative
exploration to further understand and grasp the salience for families with young children. In
particular, this is needed for families with children aged 0-5 years, who commonly move at the
life stage of family commencement (ABS 2012a) to newer residential areas with limited social
infrastructure, and where they are often experiencing new social networks, a shortfall in
extended family nearby, and at risk from isolation. Once children are older, their school often
becomes a significant conduit for connecting parents with local communities (Wood et al.
2011), but these are generally not accessible in Australia until the oldest child is 4 years of age,
with compulsory education from 5 years of age. The aim of this study therefore, was to
broaden the understanding of the experiences of families with children aged 0-5 years on what
it means to be connected to a local community in newer residential areas in Perth, Western
Australia, with the view to provide insights that can inform policy and practice in supporting
families with young children. The research question: How do mothers of children aged 0-5
years’ experience connectedness to their local community?
5.4.4 Methods
This interpretive study is underpinned by a constructivist epistemology and guided by the
hermeneutic phenomenology principles of van Manen (1990) and the work of Heidegger as
described by Gadamer (2004). As a methodology, hermeneutic phenomenology is suitable for
103
exploring the meaning of everyday experiences of phenomena within a social and contextual
world (van Manen 1990), in this case the phenomena of ‘being connected’ to one’s local
community.
Participants
A purposive and maximum variation sampling was used to garner a variety of different
perspectives (Creswell 2007). In order to obtain insights of families with young children, in-
depth interviews were undertaken with 12 mothers (age 30-37 years) of children aged 0-5
years. The initial participants were recruited from the RESIDE1 database of residents living in
newer neighbourhoods, with some snowballing to maximise variability. Data saturation was
indicated following 10 interviews as no further essential or incidental themes emerged from
the analysis. A further two interviews were undertaken for the purpose of diversity in
perspectives; however, no new themes were identified. Diversity in the participants was
sought to reflect different levels of support, and varied time of residence and life
circumstances. Four of the mothers were from overseas and had moved to Australia prior to
starting a family. Only two mothers were known to each other, and all mothers attended
different community and family support groups and lived across three large local government
areas in newer outer suburban residential locations. All the mothers were the primary
caregiver in their families and were in paid employment from 0 to 32 hours per week.
The family participants were all home owners, which reflect 69% of families with children aged
0-5 years in Australia (ABS 2009b), and had lived in their current homes from one to seven
years. Rigorous data collection was maintained with an audit trail which included field notes
and familiarisation with the local landscape and built environments in the local communities of
the interviewees. Ethics approval for the study was granted by the Human Research Ethics
Committee of The University of Western Australia.
Procedure and analysis
The interviews took place in the homes of the participants to be convenient for the needs of
families with young children and ranged in duration from 90 to 120 minutes. The interviews
were conversational and reflective on everyday life experiences for families with young
children - in particular, focus was on topics such as social support in the transition to becoming
a parent, community groups and services, and living in a newer residential area. Each parent
1 RESIDE is a longitudinal research project that began in 2003 through the Centre for the Built Environment and
Health at UWA. It aims to evaluate the impact of urban design on health; in particular, the impact of urban design on walking, cycling, use of public transport and sense of community.
104
was asked ‘what does it mean to them to be connected to their local community?’ and how
their experiences have shaped their views.
Interviews were transcribed verbatim and QSR NVivo9 was used to assist coding. Data
collection and analysis occurred simultaneously using van Manen’s (1990) research activities; a
dynamic process, which included the investigation of experience “as we live it’, thoughtful
consideration on both the parts and the whole, and a back and forth reflective process
between writing, data and rewriting. This process can also be viewed as Heidegger’s
hermeneutic circle as described by Gadamer (2004 p 269), where initial meanings and “fore-
projections” are revised and replaced through understanding and interpretation. Van Manen
describes the meaning or essence in phenomenology to be “multi-dimensional and multi-
layered” and advises following a thematic analysis where the themes are ‘the structures of
experience’ (van Manen 1990 pp 78-79). This process uses “free imaginative variation” to look
for qualities of themes to discover those which “make a phenomenon what it is and without
which the phenomenon could not be what it is” (van Manen 1990 p 107). Finally, the essential
themes that are the intrinsic meanings applied to a phenomenon (which in this study is the
essence of the lived experience for the mothers of being connected to the local community)
are interpreted and presented using verbatim quotes with pseudonyms. The analysis was also
informed by other content discussed within the interviews, literature and the experiences of
the co-authors, and enabled earlier assumptions to be challenged in the analysis and new
insights obtained.
5.4.5 Findings
Three essential and interrelated themes or essences: ‘interaction’ ‘knowing what’s going on’
and ‘help is nearby if you need it’ were identified from the analysis and interpretation of the
data. In addition, ‘belonging’ was identified as an incidental theme as not all of the
participants who felt connected experienced a sense of belonging. Most participants
expressed future aspirations which commonly drew on past and present experiences.
Interaction
‘Interaction’ in the local community appeared to be the central essence of being connected
and is multi-layered. To participants, ‘interaction’ seemed to encompass the feeling of ‘being
part of it’, and living amongst and getting to know others. This can be conceived as a
continuum. At one end it is ‘brushing elbows’ with others in the street or at the shops or parks,
which provides a sense of living with others in a neighbourhood, as described in the following
comments from the interview participants:
105
I’ve had more opportunities...to brush elbows with them (other residents)...because before the
shops were there... (So, it’s actually bumping into them?) Yep (and interacting with them even
if it is just a brief encounter?) yep (that you and other people out there are visible to each
other?) Exactly…like you have more of a chance now of getting to know people. (Coralie)
Maybe just seeing more of those people in the area...you feel like you know more people
maybe rather than just being friends with two or three neighbours in the street. Like I’m
starting to see a bit more...because these three families have just started school and you see
them on the way to school...and I had a chat with someone on the way home from school this
morning in the street and I don’t know who they are or where they live... I just know that they
have a son in grade one and we were walking home together and having a nice chat. (Does
that make you feel connected?) Yeh, yeh...it was actually quite nice. (Brenda)
It’s nice to be able to go outside and see someone bringing their bin in and you have a bit of a
chat...it’s nice... (Margo)
At the other end of the continuum, interaction can entail involvement with local community
groups such as playgroups. As expressed by many participants, this can provide enjoyment as
well as satisfaction from receiving and giving back to the community, and also reduced
isolation for families with young children by enabling them to meet others living in their local
community, in particular, other parents with young children. Parenthood for some seems to
heighten their sense of responsibility for supporting the local community. Along the
continuum, interaction varies by degree and may be casual, informal or formal; with
neighbours, friends, community groups and services. Examples of interaction with involvement
in local community groups are illustrated in the following comments from the interview
participants:
But I do feel connected, like I… I think I get a lot of enjoyment out of it... I think it feels good
about like giving back. (and later) Some of the opportunities I’ve had make me feel quite
connected...(on being involved in a local school fund raising activity) (Coralie)
I think I’m a part of things more...like I...we joined the toy library...and so I’m on the committee
for the toy library...I’m the treasurer now. So we’ve got a meeting on Wednesday
night...tomorrow night at the coffee shop...because you know...it is a good place to meet for
meetings (laughter) (Jill)
However, in newer residential areas it takes time to build houses, community and shopping
hubs and subsequent community groups (Tomlinson 2012). It may take several years to foster
106
a sense of living amongst others along with opportunities to join local community groups;
therefore, creating more potential isolation for families with young children in newer
residential areas.
‘Interaction’ as an essence of community connectedness reflects some aspects of the sense of
community dimensions of membership, influence and shared emotional connection, as
described in McMillan and Chavis’s (1986) framework: where membership refers to a ‘personal
relatedness’ to the community, influence refers to ‘making a difference’ by personal
contribution and collective action, and shared emotional connection where members invest in
a shared future for the neighbourhood. It is interesting to note that Obs et al.(2002) found
‘sharing’ and ‘influence’ to be the main factors that emerged as significant in their quantitative
analysis of sense of community indices. In addition, ‘interaction’ as a theme resonates with
participation and network features of social capital.
Knowing what’s going on
‘Knowing what’s going on’ was the vernacular expressed by many participants. The
importance placed on knowing what’s going on included trust, safety and sharing of local
information, and it was closely linked with the sense that there is help nearby if needed. While
‘knowing what’s going on’ is a common expression and valued, there is scant overt reference
to it in the literature, nor to the notion it encapsulates. However, Panelli and Welch (2005), in
their Australian study using a participatory action research design within a rural township,
explored individual perspectives on the notion of ‘community’. They found that ‘knowing
what’s going on’ was an important theme for adult community residents across varying
individual levels of interaction within the community. Even for residents with limited
opportunities to interact, it is important to know what is going on (Panelli & Welch, 2005). A
similar finding was reported by Heenan (2010) who looked at community connectedness for
older people in rural settings. In addition, ‘knowing what’s going on’ can range from informally
knowing what is going on in the lives of other individuals in the community, through to
awareness of events happening in the broader community (Panelli & Welch 2005), as is
evident in the following examples from participants:
I don’t know why...but it’s pretty much...or maybe it’s just everybody...its small enough that
everybody knows something about everybody else. And it might be something small
about...you know, their children go there and they like that school for that reason...or...they’ve
got a dog that you know...has just been put down...or whatever...you know...that are just little
bits of info that we share. (Carmel)
107
You know… we (mothers’ group members) are interested in the same things that are
happening in the neighbourhood as well. So, that’s where I also find out about new things that
are coming up. I’ll go and look on the internet and if I need anything or more information on
that. (Margot)
Panelli and Welch (2005) suggest that it is the sharing of information which “ameliorates an
individual’s experience of singularity” (p 1607). In other words, it is good to ‘know what’s going
on’ as it increases a sense of connectedness and reduces a sense of aloneness. This is
illustrated in the following comments from participants:
To me it’s (being connected) about…I don’t know…trust and safety…those sort of things…just
knowing what’s going on. A sort of peace of mind…because if you feel like you have all those
things…then you feel like you are connected. Without those things you don’t really feel
connected. (Angie)
Um...I think mainly just feeling part of it...like...I guess if I didn’t go to do my club (fitness) and
talk to the neighbours or whatever...I wouldn’t know what was going on...gossiping...what
happened that day or...we were on the news the other week or whatever...(Jill)
‘Knowing what’s going on’ in newer residential areas can be enhanced, on the one hand, by
information provided through local government or ratepayers associations, which includes
local area social media web pages. However, on the other hand, it is the sharing of information
from each other’s lives that seems to principally occur through opportunities to build social
relationships and networks. For families with children aged 0 to 5 years, who are not yet part
of the school community, building social networks locally and ‘knowing what’s going on’ is
mainly influenced by the capacity within the built environment and community groups to
provide social opportunities. In addition, local area and community group social media web
pages are useful for ‘knowing what’s going on’ for parents who are confined to home due to
the needs of very young children.
Interrelatedness between the themes ‘interaction’ and ‘knowing what’s going on’ was
common and is captured in Leila’s comment:
I like to know what’s going on and I like to be part of it. I’m an organiser, so I like to be... in
amongst the action. (Leila)
Help is nearby if you need it
‘Help is nearby if you need it’ was another essential theme that emerged strongly from the
108
discussions with mothers. This may reflect a generic need for support at stressful times, but
also seemed to be more significant for families with young children due to the responsibilities
and the challenges of caring for young children within every day family life. Parents of young
children, in particular new parents, can feel isolated, vulnerable and exhausted (Barclay et al.
1997), and this can augment their desire for support and help nearby. On moving to the newer
residential areas the participants had often moved away from family and old social networks,
and this can compound issues of isolation and social support. The essential theme ‘help is
nearby if you need it’ is similar to one aspect of McMillan and Chavis’s (1986) third dimension
of sense of community, integration and fulfilment of needs, and resonates with Obst, Smith
and Zinkiewicz’s (2002) study which found ‘support’ to be a prominent factor within sense of
community. Furthermore, the importance of having help nearby if needed shares aspects of
reciprocity as a feature of social capital. This is illustrated in the following quotes:
It means that I have a family...here. The mother’s group became my family...my support
network. And without them I probably would not cope at all. (Vera)
Well it’s nice to know people are around and they are willing to help. Um...our elderly next door
neighbours, they always like us to go popping in...so, it’s just nice to know that they’ll lend a
hand…in case. (Margot)
‘Help is nearby if you need it’ was inter-related with the other themes, ‘interaction’ and
‘knowing what is going on’, and this may reflect in part, parental anxiety and the need for a
social network nearby to help if a child or family member needs assistance. For example,
parents worry about the ‘threat’ and potential seriousness of childhood illness (Kai 1996).
Furthermore, parenthood for some of the participants heightened their awareness of safety in
the local community, while for others safety had always been important. Nevertheless, a sense
of protectiveness came with parenthood and feeling connected through knowing others
locally, knowing what was going on and that there were others nearby who could help if
needed was reassuring for many of the participants, as illustrated in the following comments
by Jill and Roberta:
You do need that kind of network of...of...people to fall back on if there is an issue...and life
isn’t always going the way you want it to... (Jill)
Knowing what is going on is good. Knowing if someone gets a break in or whatever makes you
feel more wary I suppose (and it makes you feel connected to...?) Ah...but...I mean it’s not the
way you want to be...but you know that....knowing if something happened to me or one of the
kids...I could call on someone and they would come over and grab the other kid or whatever.
109
(Roberta)
Belonging
‘Belonging’ was identified as an incidental theme of community connectedness rather than an
essential theme, as van Manen (1990) describes incidental themes to be those that are not
essential to experience the phenomenon, which is the finding for ‘belonging’ in this study.
Belonging as described by some of the participants referred to what it means to be connected
to their communities. This is congruent with literature relating to concepts of ‘community’
(Green et al. 2006), ‘sense of community’ (Bellefeuille 2005; McMillan & Chavis 1986; Pooley
et al. 2005), ‘neighbourhood cohesion’ (Baum et al. 2009) and social capital (Carpiano &
Hystad 2011).
Well...definitely feeling like I belong...um...and feeling that there are people around who
care...there is support around...so I guess feeling like I belong...feeling that there is
support...and people are just really friendly and accepting...it’s sort of...um...you just really feel
that people are warm and genuine and...I don’t know if it’s because we are in a small
community. (Carmel)
Belonging is an individual experience and can vary markedly for people in the same
neighbourhood and similar life circumstances. For example, two of the participants who felt
connected to their local communities did not however feel like they belonged to their local
community. For these parents, who had lived in Australia for only a few years of their adult
life, belonging was not currently their experience; however, it was viewed as a possibility in the
future.
(So you feel connected...do you feel like you belong here?) hmm… Not yet maybe...things take
time...I mean to...establish a good circle of friends and...it just takes years. (Vera)
I do feel connected…Do I feel like I belong? You know, that’s an interesting word because I
think… being a foreigner it’s hard…especially Australians…you wouldn’t think it…it’s not like
you know there is a language barrier. I don’t think until I get my citizenship would I use the
word belong personally. (Coralie)
The feeling of being connected to a community without a sense of ‘belonging’ should not be
surprising as literature reports historical narrative on the experiences of migrating to foreign
lands (Armstrong 2004; Mackay 1999). However, it is somewhat counterintuitive as ‘belonging’
is a term that denotes connection, warmth and ‘feeling at home’; a term in the common
lexicon when referring to one’s attachment to a place. It is interesting to note that in
110
McMillan and Chavis’s theoretical framework they propose that membership, as the first
element of sense of community, to be “the feeling of belonging or of sharing a sense of
personal relatedness” (1986 p 9), which suggests that belonging is not a prerequisite and that
personal relatedness equally qualifies. Nevertheless, McMillan and Chavis appear to
emphasise in their article the term ‘belonging’ as do other authors (Chipuer & Pretty 1999;
Green et al. 2006; Pooley et al. 2005) citing McMillan and Chavis. Despite common reference
to ‘belonging’ in the literature, as a phenomenon there has been limited research and it is
poorly understood (Antonsich 2010; Mee & Wright 2009; Miller 2003). In addition, its
relationship with community (Green et al. 2006) and as a ‘crude’ measure of social capital
(Carpiano & Hystad 2011) remains unclear.
Armstrong (2004) who explored the experiences of migrants to Australia identified that
belonging posed a dilemma for all migrants. Today, with one in four Australians born overseas
(ABS 2012a), further research on belonging as a phenomenon is needed to understand the
complexity for migrants and the influence it may have on community connectedness in newer
residential areas and more broadly.
Future aspirations for community connectedness
Most participants expressed future aspirations of being more connected to their local
communities. In this study, the participants had predominantly moved into their
neighbourhoods as homeowners and as couples planning a family and future together in their
newer residential areas. Participants who planned a future in their local area expressed a
vested interest in their newer residential area and optimism for future connectedness as the
community became more established and their involvement increased. Their projected
experiences of being connected to their community may be viewed through Heidegger’s
process of ‘temporality’, cited in Gadamer (2004), or van Manen’s (1990) ‘lived time’, which
subjectively combines the past, the present and the future as one unit; where there is a vision
into the future with hopes and expectations - drawing from the past and present. Anticipating
their children commencing school locally was a striking example of this - the following three
quotes below encapsulate the expectations of being more connected through their children
attending school:
Ah...well I guess being involved as a community...but I’m not really...involved in anything that
happens in this yet. Yes... I guess once school starts and sport starts and things like that...that it
will be a different scenario. (Susan)
I guess, ideally it (being connected) would be being involved. But there is probably not a lot to
111
be involved in our community as such. I think there will be a lot more once we are part of the
school community. But I guess, outside of school, using the local shops and using the local
services maybe and going to the local pub and saying hello to your neighbours and the people
in the street. (Brenda)
(So your community involvement will go up now?) Yeh I think so...and I mean there was one
Mum already...another working Mum...so you know...I’ve sort of met her and...we’ve only been
there for what...four weeks going to school (4 year old kindy)...so...that has started another
branch in the tree. (Jill)
In addition, the following two examples illustrate future hopes more broadly; for themselves
and their families in the community.
My mother...she has lived in V since she was about four...so she is fifty eight...and everyone
knows her...in that suburb...you know...or they know of her...or they know her surname or one
of us kids...or what. And so for her that is good...and that’s what I would like... But, now she
has gone back to work and she...for a while she was cleaning old people’s homes...and now she
is doing teacher’s aide at the primary school I used to go to...and she is seeing like my
generation’s children and things like that...so... Um...so, that’s what I’d like sort of...to be able
to feel that part of community...that is now with the next generation. (Jill)
I think...I think with every generation it changes slightly. But I think ultimately we want what
our parents...like what we had when we were kids...and every generation wants what they had
when they were kids. And when I was a kid...you played with the kids next door...your parents
knew your school friends’ parents and...you all mucked in together. And you know...I kind of
want that...I want to have that...and I think so because that’s what I had when I was a
kid...so... (and later) ...I guess ultimately I don’t want to be living amongst strangers…I want to
have friends in the area...I want to walk out my door and say hello... (Thea)
Overall, for the families in this study, the lived experience of being connected to one’s local
community in a newer residential area included a desire or need to be connected, along with
anticipation and hope for a future of stronger connections. The findings are intuitive and
supported by current social thinking (Mackay, 2009), in particular for families with children
(Fegan & Bowes, 2009; Moore, 2006; Vimpani, 2001), and in recent research which found that
children’s involvement in local schools enable parents to forge social capital (Wood et al.
2011).
112
5.4.6 Discussion
In this study, ‘Interaction’ ‘knowing what’s going on’ and ‘help is nearby if you need it’ were
found to be the essential inter-related themes of being connected to the local community for
the mothers who participated. They were experienced by the participants at different times
and different intensities; where one may be more important than another. Obst, Smith and
Zinkiewicz (2002) also found an overlapping of dimensions in their study of ‘sense of
community’ indices, in particular for McMillan and Chavis’s (1986) Sense of Community Index.
Furthermore, Obst, Smith and Zinkiewicz (2002) reported on indices that explored interaction
and support, however, there was not an index that included a statement on ‘knowing what’s
going on’. Reflection on these essential themes is considered further.
The findings support the need for ‘opportunities’ to interact and meet others that encourage
residents to spend time ‘out and about’ in their local community, as purported to be essential
for healthy communities (Baum & Palmer 2002; Oldenburg 1999; Wood & Giles-Corti 2008),
for parents with young children (Moore 2006); and in particular, for new parents living in
newer residential developments (Williams & Pocock 2010). In addition, Moore (2006) and
Fegan and Bowes (2009) advocate the need for lots of occasions where there are ‘random
encounters’ with other parents of young children in the street or shopping centres, as these
provide exchanges of information on behaviour and attitudes that can help to normalise and
alleviate parental stress. However, newer residential areas often have a lag in the physical
infrastructure such as shopping and community hubs (Tomlinson 2012) that support social
opportunities, such as playgroups (Snedden & Hynes 2003) for families to interact and build
connections. Furthermore, social interaction has been found to be lower in neighbourhoods
with poorer ratings of amenities and services (Dahl et al. 2010; Ziersch et al. 2011). Thus,
families in newer residential areas can experience shortfalls in opportunities to interact, which
will influence the time it takes for families with young children to feel connected and
supported in their local communities. The gravity of this is underpinned by the vulnerability
and potential isolation with the transition to parenthood.
Community groups, such as mothers’ groups and playgroups, create opportunities to interact,
to share information ‘to know what is going on’ and to build supportive networks so ‘help is
nearby if needed’. However, forging friendships and supportive networks were understood by
the participants as an ‘it takes time’ process. This may leave some mothers feeling a short fall
in ‘help is nearby if needed’ while social networks are developing, in particular if family or
other support networks are limited or absent. The salience of such a shortfall may leave
mothers with young children feeling isolated, anxious and vulnerable.
113
Therefore, as a broader community we need to investigate how to improve and support this
process with community groups. One such collaborative and promising intervention with a
focus on befriending strategies for new mothers was undertaken recently in Victoria, Australia
(Lumley et al. 2006). Furthermore, Baum and Palmer (2002) recommend a subsidy program to
encourage development of meeting places in newer residential areas. On the other hand, the
antenatal period could be considered as a suitable intervention window for community
services to assist families to build networks and connections within the local community
before the postnatal period. This may be particularly helpful for women who have moved from
elsewhere and have limited or no social support available.
‘Knowing what’s going on’ can also be acquired through local newsletters (hardcopy or online)
and local social media pages, and these may be suitable means for mothers who can have
periods of limited mobility due to the needs of very young children. There is need for research
on the extent that local community social media sites enable families with young children to
interact and connect with others.
The responses from participants highlight how wellbeing and quality of day to day life are
intertwined with connectedness. From a health perspective, the relationship between
maternal mental health and isolation and social support for families with young children is well
documented (Leahy-Warren et al. 2012; Mulvaney & Kendrick 2005). In addition, parental
health has been linked to child outcomes (Robinson et al. 2008) and the preschool years are
crucial for laying the foundations for future developmental and health outcomes (Zubrick et al.
2005). As a broader community we are showing signs of connecting less with others (Leigh
2010), along with one in four parents reporting low levels of social support (Zubrick et al.
2008). A recent study by The Australia Institute (Baker 2012) on loneliness found that women
reported feeling more lonely than men in families with children, and the opposite was found
with couples who did not have children. Thus, for women, starting a family can be an isolating
experience at a time when there is potential vulnerability and an increase need for social
support. There is work to be done; to provide opportunities for families with young children to
build support and social networks that help to alleviate isolation and promote community
connectedness.
5.4.7 Limitations
This study intentionally focused on connectedness through the lens of mothers of young
children, hence may not reflect what it is to be connected to one’s local community for
mothers of older children or non-parents. The participants were also all home-owners (albeit
with mortgages hence the findings may not be reflective of the 31% families with children
114
aged 0-5 years in Australia who are in rental or public housing situations (ABS 2009b). Non-
homeowners are also likely to represent marginalised groups. In addition, the experiences of
the families are viewed from the mother’s perspective only. It is important to recognise that a
phenomenological study by its very nature is only one interpretation of a lived experience, and
as van Manen (1990 p 31) clearly advises ‘no single interpretation of human experience will
ever exhaust the possibility of yet another complementary, or even potentially richer or
deeper description’.
5.4.8 Conclusion
For the mothers in this study, the essences of being connected to the local community were
‘Interaction’, ‘Knowing what’s going on’ and ‘Help is nearby if you need it’, which drew on past
and present experiences to project future aspirations of stronger connections to their local
communities. ‘Belonging’ was experienced by some of the mothers, however, not all who felt
connected to their local community felt like they belonged. It is concerning that our findings,
which showed anticipated stronger community connections once children attended school,
appear to be not experienced in the preschool years when mothers and families are at risk of
isolation and mental health problems such as postnatal depression. In addition, newer
residential areas on the urban fringe, which have higher proportions of families with young
children, often have a lag in the physical infrastructure which provides social opportunities
that support community connectedness. Thus, it is important to continue to investigate how
families of children aged 0-5 years of age are faring. These findings provide insights into how
mothers with young children experience being connected to their local communities in newer
residential areas, and highlight potential objectives for further research and the expansion of
strategies to enable families to become more connected and supported within their
communities during the preschool years.
5.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter consisted of the qualitative findings as three manuscripts. Each manuscript
contains a piece of the jigsaw, that illustrates a larger story of how families with young children
are faring in our newer residential areas, through the experiences of the participants in this
study. In chapter 6 a summary of the key findings of the three manuscripts is described which
then guided the development of the survey instrument for the quantitative phase of the study.
115
CHAPTER 6
CONNECTING THE QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE
RESEARCH PHASES
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The content of this chapter serves as a bridge between the qualitative and quantitative
research phases of the study, and describes how key qualitative findings informed the
development of the quantitative phase of the research. This included: discussion on the role
of the qualitative research in the determination of the key independent and dependent
variables; and a review of existing literature for quantitative measuring tools on social capital,
community connectedness, social cohesiveness, sense of community, social support, health
and wellbeing measures. Measures were selected, modified or developed to provide a focus
on families with children aged 0-5 years. The development and scope of the survey instrument
and item pool is also described.
6.2 SUMMARY OF THE QUALITATIVE FINDINGS
While Chapter 5 presented qualitative findings in the form of three published manuscripts, it is
important to synthesise the key insights from the qualitative research that informed the design
and focus of the subsequent quantitative research phase. Overall, the qualitative research
highlighted that early parenthood is a significant transition on the life course: a time of
increased social support need when it is common to seek other parents experiencing the same
stage in life; and commonly associated with an increase in vested interest in the local
community with a desire to participate locally, to know others locally and to have help nearby
if needed. These themes appear to drive a desire for parents to ‘connect’ to the local
community in order to build a supportive network nearby, to develop a sense of community,
and fulfil aspirations for their family within the local community.
From the review of the social capital literature a social capital framework applicable to families
116
with young children aged 0 to 5 years was developed (as described in manuscript 1 in Chapter
5 and depicted diagrammatically below in Figure 6.1). The structural and cognitive components
(Berry & Welsh 2010) of social capital, which are also referred to by Harpham et al. (2002) as
‘what people do’ and ‘what people feel’ respectively, are presented within the framework as
the following smaller components: participation in groups and networks in the community,
social action and norms, social support, reciprocity, trust and shared values. The experiences
of building and drawing on social capital as articulated in the interviews and focus groups for
mothers with young children were analysed using thematic analysis. Participation was found
to be a key feature of building social capital within the neighbourhoods resided in by families
with young children. Knowing others locally, commonly through participating in a community
group or building ‘neighbourly’ relationships with those living nearby appeared to activate and
enhance social capital features and resources. Participation was influenced by the progress of
the built environment and the availability of community groups to provide physical and social
infrastructure needed for opportunities to participate. For example, if community centres
were not locally placed families reported needing to go outside the area to join a playgroup.
A prominent theme in the findings relating to group participation pertained to the role of
mothers’ groups and playgroups (as described in manuscript 2 in Chapter 5). The qualitative
findings indicated that where a group experience is positive, there are potentially four
perceived benefits for mothers: learning about parenting, building a supportive network,
forging friendships and a connectedness to the local community (Figure 6.1). However,
mothers group and playgroup experiences varied, and groups were not always suitable or a
‘good fit’ for some mothers, and were not always available in the local area. It emerged that
mothers need to be proactive in finding one that suited their needs, was accessible and with
vacancies. If group participation facilitated relationships locally, then generally connectedness
to the local community was also enhanced. Relocation, which was experienced by several of
the participants, often meant the loss of supportive mothers’ groups and playgroups, and the
feeling of isolation until new groups and social supportive networks were formed. In addition,
there was commonly almost no capacity for second time mothers who had relocated to join
another mothers’ group in their new area, as older siblings could not attend facilitated
mothers’ group sessions. Furthermore, it often took time to discover another suitable
playgroup with vacancies to join.
The qualitative phase of the study also asked participants “What does ‘being connected’ to
your local community mean?” As described in manuscript 3 in Chapter 5, phenomenological
analysis of this data illuminated the essences of ‘being connected’: Interacting locally, knowing
what is going on locally, and help is nearby if you need it. While a ‘sense of belonging’ was
117
experienced by some it was not experienced by a few mothers who otherwise felt connected
to their local community, but who hoped that they might feel a ‘sense of belonging’ in the
future. Most of the participants had future aspirations for being more connected to their local
communities. These key findings, from the three manuscripts in Chapter 5, are summarised
diagrammatically in Figure 6.1.
Figure 6.1 Summary of key qualitative findings
Participation in
groups and
networks in the
community
Social
action and
norms
Social
support Reciprocity
Trust and
shared
values
Social capital for families with young children
Community group participation
Mothers’ groups and Playgroups fostered:
parent learning
supportive networks
friendships
local community connectedness
Impacted by relocation, local capacity and
suitability of groups
The essence of ‘being connected’ to the local
community was:
interacting locally
knowing what is going on locally
help is nearby if you need it
For some a sense of belonging but not for all
Most had future aspirations for being more
connected
Parenthood brought a desire to connect to the local community due to a need for social support and
increased vested interest in local community
The built and social environment influences - community centres, shopping hubs and playgroups
Structural (community participation): ‘what people do’
Cognitive (Social cohesion): ‘what people feel’
118
6.3 DEFINING THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT SCOPE
The scope of the survey instrument was determined from both the key findings from the
qualitative phase (as summarised in Figure 6.1) and from the review of current literature
relevant to families with young children in community settings. Within the scope of the survey
instrument, dependent and independent variables of interest were determined and a
subsequent item pool developed.
6.3.1 Dependent and Independent variables of interest
Dependent variables of interest included: social capital measures, which includes structural
(community participation) ‘what people do’ and cognitive (social cohesion) ‘what people feel’;
social support measures, in particular, for parents of young children; and health and mental
wellbeing. Independent variables of interest included demographic characteristics; relocation
and mobility; participation in mothers’ groups and playgroups locally, outside the local area
and non-participation; views since becoming a parent using the themes explored in ‘being
connected’ to the local community; and views since becoming a parent on local amenity.
Additional variables included local or outside local area activities that are sources of social
support or enhance the feeling of connectedness to the local community; digital
communication frequency and reasons for use, and overall perceived benefits, or not, for
families with young children; and lastly an opportunity for participants to provide feedback
and/or other perspectives.
6.3.2 Operational definitions
The process of transforming research objectives and key concepts into appropriate variable
survey items and scales, and subsequent management of data collection, has been referred to
as determining the ‘operational definitions’ (Aday & Cornelius 2011). Careful planning of
‘operational definitions’ is important to ensure survey items and data collected describe and
encapsulate the concepts and study objectives to be investigated (Aday & Cornelius 2011). A
good starting point is to review relevant literature for past instruments, to consider on the
basis of sound validity and reliability. The process of developing the item pool is summarised
below. Where there is an absence of a suitable instrument/ item/scale then the design of new
items or scales ought to be guided by the experiences of other survey instrument research,
which includes errors and theoretical expectations, clarity and instructions, and validity and
reliability reported (Aday & Cornelius 2011).
119
6.4 DEVELOPING THE ITEM POOL
The dependent and independent variables of interest are presented in Table 6.1. While
validated instruments and scales were used where possible and applicable, there were several
gaps in available measures, hence new items were also developed. For example, existing
validated instruments of social support did not capture different types of perceived social
support from outside the home for parents with young children which had emerged as an
important issue in the qualitative research. Therefore, a scale, named the Parent Support
Outside Home Scale, was developed to measure perceived social support for parents of young
children.
Similarly, there were no available items or scales that measured parents’ perceptions of ‘being
connected’ to the local community, nor items or scales that explored current digital
communication peculiar to parents with young children. Hence new items were designed to
investigate parental views of the themes of ‘being connected’ to the local community and on
use of current digital communication relevant to parents of young children. A summary list of
questions, scales and sources is provided in Appendix IV. The full item pool is described below.
The demographic measures chosen were adapted from various survey instruments. The
measures included gender, age, number of children under 18 years of age (gender and age),
relationships status, country of birth, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander status, language other
than English, home ownership, employment status and education level attained. Postcode and
age of residential area (<10 years or 10 years) were included to assess the distance from the
central business district (CBD) of Perth and to gauge to some degree the age of the residential
areas in which participants resided. In addition, the length of residence (5 options) from less
than one year to greater than seven years and mobility within the last five years (within the
same suburb, another suburb, regional or rural Western Australia, interstate and overseas)
were included to gauge recent relocation history of participants.
6.4.1 Utilisation of validated scales and items from other sources
Social capital, community connectedness and social cohesion
Earlier studies of social capital tended to rely on measures available in existing social surveys
or other secondary sources that researchers felt reflected social capital features such as trust
120
Table 6.1 Dependent and independent variables of interest
Dependent variables Components identified from literature and qualitative research
Social capital measures
Includes participation in local community, social support, reciprocity, trust. For participation and reciprocity the focus here was on structural
‘what people do’ using a score for the sum of: participation options involved in local and outside local area, and two-way reciprocity
experienced within the local area; but not the intensity or quality of the participation or reciprocity.
Social cohesiveness Forms part of cognitive social capital ‘what people feel’. In addition, includes aspects of the neighbourhood: attractiveness, friendliness,
similarity to others, belonging, diversity, shared values and desire to stay.
Social support generally and as a
parent
Forms part of the structural ‘what people do’ and cognitive ‘what people feel’. The focus here was on ‘what people feel’ in particular for
parents. Items included: emotional, informational, practical and appraisal types of social support.
Health and mental well-being Overall health status and mental well-being
Independent variables Components identified from literature and qualitative research
Participant demographics Gender, age, current relationships status, country of birth, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) or not, language other than English in
home, residence owned or rented, employment status, education level, number and age of children, postcode, age of residential area.
Relocation and mobility length of residence in suburb, types of residential relocation within last 5 years,
Group participation mothers’ groups and playgroups – participation locally, outside area and non-participation as three groupings
Additional variables Components identified from literature and qualitative research
Views on the local community since
becoming a parent
Developed items to explore further the qualitative findings on ‘being connected’ to the local community for mothers with young children:
interaction, knowing what is going on, having help nearby if needed. The focus here was on views of change, if any, and the importance
placed and experiences now as a parent. In addition, views of local amenity as a parent
Activity/s provided social support
or community connectedness Involvement in what type of group or activity that has provided social support/ has helped to feel connected to the local community
Use of digital communication
Frequency of use of different types of digital communication for general use and as a parent. Reasons for using Facebook and websites
designed for use by parents of young children, and an overall view of benefits, or not, of digital community for families with young children.
While not a key finding or focus of this study, the survey was an opportunity to explore this area and gather data for analysis to be
undertaken in a later study.
Open question to allow for
thoughts and feedback An opportunity for participants to provide feedback or other perspectives.
121
and civic engagement (Putnam 1995a; Kawachi et al. 1997). These earlier ecological findings
have been useful for generating hypotheses on social capital. Social capital measures continue
to be derived from secondary sources or from instruments purposively developed to measure
social capital specifically (Onyx & Bullen 2000; Kennedy School of Government Harvard
University 2001; Stone 2001; Wood 2006). However, methodological weaknesses include how
the different schools of thought on social capital theory influence the validity of scales.
Specifically, scales may include items that are viewed by some researchers to be external to
social capital features (Carpiano 2006; De silva 2006; Harpham 2008). For example,
neighbourhood safety is sometimes included in social capital scales (Onyx & Bullen 2000) but
excluded by other authors (Harpham, Grant & Thomas 2002). The multidimensional nature
and complexity of social capital is insufficiently understood in theory and subsequently
measured in a variety of ways (Stone & Hughes 2000). In addition, with changes in technology,
items within scales can become quickly out-dated as evident in Onyx and Bullen’s scale which
has an item on landline phones. Therefore, for this study it was decided to adopt measures
that scored a variety of components of social capital.
Buckner’s Neighbourhood Cohesion Index
As described in Chapter 2 (Section 2.3.4) social cohesion is also viewed as a measure of
‘cognitive’ social capital or ‘what people feel’ at a local level. For the purposes of this study,
Buckner’s (1988) Neighbourhood Cohesion Index (NCI) was used as previously employed in
studies exploring social dimensions of local communities (Ellaway, Macintyre & Kearns 2001;
Poortinga, Dunstan & Fone 2007). Buckner’s NCI includes several statements that resonate
with the different experiences of the participants in the qualitative phase. For example,
“I feel like I belong to this neighbourhood.”
“The friendships and associations I have made with other people in my neighbourhood
mean a lot to me.”
“I believe my neighbours would help me in an emergency.”
“I would be willing to work together with others on something to improve my
neighbourhood.”
Reliability of the Neighbourhood Cohesion Index using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha has been
from 0.91 (Robinson & Wilkinson 1995) to 0.95 (Buckner 1988).
Social capital – 4 items (Families, Social Capital and Citizenship Survey)
Four items from the Families, Social Capital and Citizenship Survey (FSCCS) (Stone & Hughes
2002), which were used by the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (Zubrick et al. 2008)
122
as a measure of ‘community connectedness’ were included. They include a variation of the
commonly used social capital question for trust “Most people in this neighbourhood can be
trusted?” and three items on being locally informed, seeking information and a sense of
identity with the neighbourhood. The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC) used the
four items as a composite score and classified parents who fell in the lowest 20% as scoring
low for community connectedness (Zubrick et al. 2008).
Participation and reciprocity in the local community (RESIDE questionnaire)
Participation and reciprocity items as measures of social capital were adapted from the RESIDE
questionnaire, which drew on several sources (Altschuler, Somkin & Adler 2004; Saguaro
Seminar 2000; Modra et al. 1998; Kreuter, Young & Lezin 1998). Modification was needed to
reflect experiences of families with young children. For example, attending mothers’ groups,
playgroups, toy library and childcare were included as categories in the participation question.
The participation question measured the number (i.e. ‘quantity’) of categories participants
were involved in within the previous 12 months both locally and outside the local area. For
example, mothers’ group was one category and playgroup was another category in the
participation question. Attending playgroup locally and outside the area was scored as two
categories. There was no distinction between facilitated or parent-led for participation in
either mothers’ group or playgroup. Therefore, respondents who reported they participated in
mothers’ group locally within the last 12 months may have participated in a facilitated and/or
parent-led mothers’ group.
The reciprocity question measured the number of categories participants were involved in
within the previous 12 months, including both received from and given to others in their local
neighbourhood. For example, caring for a child was one category and caring for a family
member other than a child was another category, and caring for a child was two categories if
participants had done this for someone as well as received this help from someone in the
neighbourhood. While the participation and reciprocity measures did not measure the ‘quality’
of involvement, the social capital (Buckner’s NCI and FSCCS) do provide a measurement of
perceived quality of the social cohesion and interaction in the local community.
In addition, several other items from the RESIDE questionnaire on neighbour and local
community attitudes, interaction and safety were included in the pilot survey (described in
Chapter 7). Furthermore, two items from Onyx and Bullen’s Social Capital Index (2000) on
culture and lifestyle diversity were adopted. Due to feedback on the length of the pilot survey
it was decided to reduce the extra items from the RESIDE questionnaire in the main survey to
123
two items on interaction with neighbours and one modified item on a safe neighbourhood for
children. These included items do not form part of the thesis but will be analysed in the future.
Social support
As described in Chapter 5 (Manuscript 1) social support was found in the qualitative analysis to
include both ‘cognitive’ social capital or ‘what people feel’ and ‘structural’ social capital or
‘what people do’ at a local level. For the purposes of the questionnaire, social support
measures previously used in community studies were employed.
Medical Outcomes Study - Social Support Survey (MOS – SSS)
The modified form of the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey (MOS-SSS)
(Sherbourne & Stewart 1991) used in the RESIDE study (Giles-Corti 2008) was incorporated
into the survey. Although the MOS-SSS was designed for use with outcomes assessment for
patients with chronic conditions, it has been used more widely (Gjesfjeld, Greeno & Kim 2008).
Sherbourne and Stewart (1991) used factor analysis to determine the 18 validated items of the
MOS-SSS which formed four subgroups of support: 1) emotional and information, 2) tangible
(instrumental), 3) positive interaction (companionship), and 4) affection.
The modified MOS-SSS for RESIDE included 13 of the 18 original items as those items that were
peculiar to chronic disease were not included; for example, ‘How often (do you have) someone
to take you to the doctor if you needed it?’ Consequently, three of the four tangible support
items were removed and two of the three affection support items were removed. All the
emotional, information and positive interaction items were included. The modified MOS-SSS
used in RESIDE is not yet published.
The MOS-SSS scale has good internal consistency with reported Cronbach alpha coefficients
>0.91 (Sherbourne & Stewart 1991) and more recently 0.96 (Gjesfjeld, Greeno & Kim 2008) as
well as with abbreviated MOS-SSS versions of 12 items and four items which were 0.94 and
0.83 respectively (Gjesfjeld, Greeno & Kim 2008). The MOS-SSS is not place specific so
perceived support reported can be from within and/or external to the home.
Overall support external to the home (The Australian Life Course Survey)
One item from The Australian Life Course Survey (1996), which was also used in the
Longitudinal Study of Australian Children in waves 1-3 (Zubrick et al. 2008) as a measure, was
used. This item is a measure of perceived overall support external to the home and is phrased
as follows: “Overall, how do you feel about the amount of support or help you get from family
124
or friends living elsewhere?” The four options are: I get enough help, I don’t get enough help, I
don’t get any help at all, and I don’t need any help. This item is therefore limited to one
measure for perceived ‘overall’ support from outside the home. As discussed below (Section
6.4.2 Development of new items and scale) a new scale was developed (Parent Support
Outside Home Scale) to explore the degree/amount of several different types of social support
available from outside the home.
Mental health and well being
Three mental health related measures were initially used in the pilot study: Kessler’s six item
non-specific psychological distress scale (Kessler et al. 2002), The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental
Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) (Tennant et al. 2007), and the commonly used ABS (2010c) single
item on general health status with five options (excellent, very good, good, fair and poor),
which has been adopted from earlier health surveys in the Medical Outcomes Study (Stewart,
Hays & Ware 1988). However, due to feedback on the length of the questionnaire it was
decided to use only the WEMWBS and the ABS item in the main survey. The single item on
general health status that is used by the ABS (2010c) in Australia and many other countries
when conducting population health surveys has been found to have good levels of validity and
reliability (Bowling 2005).
Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale
The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) was designed to measure
positive mental health and is composed of only positively worded items. The WEMWBS has
had good internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha scores between 0.83 and 0.91 (Tennant
et al. 2007), and has gained traction internationally as a validated measure of positive mental
wellbeing.
6.4.2 Development of new items and scales
Principally, survey items needed to reflect the experiences of parents of children aged 0-5
years as garnered through the qualitative phase of the study and from current literature. As
noted earlier, appropriate existing measures were not always available, hence the following
survey items and scale were developed to augment the other well established questions and
scales in the survey.
Parent Support Outside Home Scale (PSOHS). This was developed to investigate the
availability of different types of perceived social support from outside the home for
families with young children. The ALCS item (AIFS 1996) (described in Section 6.4.1) on
125
overall social support from outside the home is limited to one response and therefore it
does not explore the different types of support that may be drawn on, or what types of
support might be experienced as less or more available. Nevertheless, it was expected
that the PSOHS would correlate with the AIFS item on overall social support.
Items about community perceptions and amenity since becoming a parent from the
themes of ‘being connected’.
Two items that asked what participation activities identified have provided a source of
social support or helped the respondent feel connected to the local community
Items investigating use of digital communication in a non-work related manner, such as
social media websites and parenting information and forum websites.
Parent Support Outside Home Scale (PSOHS)
The Parent Support Outside Home Scale (PSOHS) was developed specifically for this study and
modelled on the MOS-SSS (Sherbourne & Stewart 1991) to explore parental perceptions of
functional social support available from outside the home, which was applicable to families
with young children. Perceived functional social support included instrumental, informational,
emotional and companionship support as proposed by several authors (House, Umberson &
Landis 1988; Sherbourne & Stewart 1991; Gjesfjeld, Greeno & Kim 2008; Cohen, Underwood &
Gottlieb 2000). This is in contrast to structural support such as the number of family members
or social networks.
Modelled on the MOS-SSS, the scale does not include any reverse score items and the item
statements are concise and easy to understand. Items (Table 6.2) were designed principally
from the findings in the qualitative phase and the literature, and to reflect different types of
possible functional support available. The question was phrased as follows:
“Parents of young children sometimes look to others from outside the home for different
types of support. How often is each of the following kinds of support available, from
outside the home, to you as a parent when you need it? Someone…”
The pilot survey and scale retest used 8 items and this was expanded for the main survey to 10
items to explore two areas (Table 6.2). During the qualitative phase parents commented on
the difficulty in getting some help if ‘they’ were unwell. Hence, it was decided to separate item
three in the pilot into two items for the main question to get a better understanding of
perceived level of support when a parent is unwell compared to when a child or other family
member is unwell. Therefore, item 3 in pilot “…someone to help in a practical way if you, your
child or other family member is unwell?” was broken down into two questions “…someone to
126
help in a practical way if your child or other family member is unwell?” and “…someone to help
in a practical way if you are unwell?” A new item (item 10) was added to the final scale to
reflect companionship with other adults that included the children as well “…someone for you
and your children together to spend time with?” This was considered important to reflect that
there is likely to be a range of availability of others to spend time with that includes the
children as well.
Community perceptions since becoming a parent
New items were developed to explore community perceptions since becoming a parent. These
items drew on qualitative findings, in particular, the themes identified through the
phenomenological analysis (paper three) of “What does being connected to your local
community mean?” Items were designed to explore the themes of ‘being connected’:
interacting and being involved in the local community, knowing what was going on in the local
community, and having help nearby if needed. In addition, items on a vested interest in the
community, importance of safety and views on local amenity now as a parent (shops at
walking distance, places to go socially, and parks in the area) were developed. Items are shown
in Appendix V: Questionnaire for the main survey. Due to the breadth of this thesis there is not
the scope to analyse the data of these particular new items; however, it is planned to
undertake an analysis in the future.
Participation activities/groups that provided social support and community
connectedness
Two original items were designed to expand on the responses to local participation categories
identified as being involved in the 12 months. Participants were asked to write (in a text box)
what types of activities/groups involved in provided them with 1) a source of social support
and 2) helped them feel connected to the local community. Analysis of these items is not
possible within the scope of this thesis and will involve a content analysis at a future date.
(Appendix V: Questionnaire for main survey)
127
Table 6.2 Items and scale development for Parent Support Outside Home Scale (PSOHS)
Scale Item components for Parent Support Outside Home Scale PSOHS Functional Social Support
informational instrumental emotional and
companionship
Pilot and retest
Parent Support
Outside Home Scale
(PSOHS) Social
support available
from outside home
(8 items)
How often is each of the following kinds of support available, from outside the home,
to you as a parent when you need it? ( 5 point Likert from ‘none of the time’ to ‘all of
the time’)
Someone to give you good advice about your child’s behaviour e.g. feeding
Someone to help in a practical way with your children e.g. child minding or care
Someone to help in a practical way if you, your child or other family member is unwell
Someone to share the joys of parenting with
Someone to share the concerns of parenting with
Someone to learn with about parenting by sharing experiences
Someone to give you information or direct you to information on parenting
Someone who makes you feel like you are doing a good job as a parent
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Main Survey
Parent Support
Outside Home Scale
(PSOHS) Social
support available
from outside the
home (expanded to
10 items)
Someone to give you good advice about your child’s behaviour e.g. feeding
Someone to help in a practical way with your children e.g. child minding or care
Someone to help in a practical way if your child or other family member is unwell
Someone to help in a practical way if you are unwell
Someone to share the joys of parenting with
Someone to share the concerns of parenting with
Someone to learn with about parenting by sharing experiences
Someone to give you information or direct you to information on parenting
Someone who makes you feel like you are doing a good job as a parent
Someone for you and your children together to spend time with
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
128
Use of digital communication
Digital communication was not initially identified as a focus of interest. However, digital
communication as a newer phenomenon, such as social media and parenting forums, is an
emergent field of social research (Bartholomew et al. 2012). During the qualitative phase it
appeared that for many parents digital communication was an important tool to keep in touch
with others, to find information and support for parenting, and to reduce isolation particularly
for those families who had relocated. Therefore, the survey item pool was expanded to include
items on current digital communication relevant to families with young children that asked
about types of use and daily time spent on digital communication for non-work related
activity. Following the pilot, this was extended to include listed reasons for Facebook use
generally and for websites applicable to parents with young children. Participants were also
asked if they felt digital communication provided help for families with young children to feel
supported (three options - yes, no, yes and no), and were given an opportunity to explain their
decision. Items on digital communication are shown in Appendix V: Questionnaire for the main
survey. While analysis of these items is not part of the study it is anticipated that analysis of
the digital communication with other dependent and independent variables will be
undertaken in the future.
6.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter contained a description of the manner in which the qualitative and quantitative
phases of this mixed method sequential study were connected; through summarising the key
findings of the qualitative phase that guided and determined, along with the current literature,
the scope of the survey instrument and the survey item pool. Dependent and independent
variables of interest were outlined and the subsequent item pool of adopted and new items
and scales were discussed. In the next chapter the survey tool (pilot and main) formatting,
sample determination, recruitment, administration, data collection and cleaning, validity and
reliability testing are presented.
129
CHAPTER 7
QUANTITATIVE METHODOLOGY
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The development of the survey tool from the variables of interest and item pool selected in
Chapter 6 is described in this chapter. Principles of validity and reliability are outlined. The
pilot survey, test and retest of new items, and reliability findings are described. Survey
administration design, sample size, recruitment and data collection are detailed and discussed
for both the pilot and main survey. A summary of the statistical methods applied to the data
from the main survey are also defined.
7.2 PRINCIPLES OF SURVEY DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING
The principles of validity and reliability for adopted items and scales and newly formed items
and scales are important factors to consider in the operational definitions of a study (see
section 6.3.2). Validity and reliability are outlined below (sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2) and the
findings are presented in sections 7.4.2 for the pilot survey test and retest of new items and
scale.
7.2.1 Validity
The validity of an instrument or scale is the degree that the instrument measures what it sets
out to measure in relation to conceptual questions, meanings, theories or hypotheses about
relationships to other concepts (Aday & Cornelius 2011). In the case of a scale it refers to how
well the scale measures the variable or construct it claims to measure (DeVellis 2011). De Vellis
(2011) describes four commonly used procedures for assessing validity: face validity, content
validity, criterion validity and construct validity, which are discussed below.
130
Face validity
Face validity refers to the assessment of items or instrument by those with some expertise or
interest in in the areas of investigation at a ‘face value’ level (DeVellis 2011). It is not a rigorous
assessment and should not be confused with content validity.
Content validity
Content validity refers to assessment of instrument content by those with some expertise in
the area of study (DeVellis 2011). Assessment includes how well the items or scales proposed
measure the concepts proposed, and this includes comparison with other potential sources.
Therefore, content validity requires careful searching of the literature to determine a pool of
instruments/scales/items to draw upon.
Criterion validity
Criterion validity is divided into ‘predictive’ and ‘concurrent’ validity depending on whether the
reference is about the future or a concurrent estimate (DeVellis 2011). Both forms are
commonly measured by correlation coefficients. For example, a high correlation between a
measure and a ‘gold standard’ criterion is indicative of good concurrent validity. On the other
hand, predictive validity is often used in longitudinal and repeat measure designs where the
results are compared at different points in time.
Construct validity
Construct validity tests how measures perform in confirming the underpinning theories or
hypotheses of the constructs being measured (DeVellis 2011). For example, how well does the
proposed scale measure the hypothesis of a positive correlation between constructs A and B
but a negative correlation between B and C? A sound knowledge of the pertinent theories is
required for assessment of construct validity.
Validity for this study
In this study, face validity was assessed drawing on expertise from colleagues for suitable
measures as well as colleagues with young children who provided feedback on subject matter
and wording. Content validity was also assessed drawing on expertise of colleagues as well as
literature critiquing items and scales as measures of the proposed concepts. Four colleagues
with young children completed the draft questionnaire and provided valuable feedback for the
final pilot questionnaire. There is no ‘gold standard’ that measures parent support from
outside the home, therefore, concurrent criterion validity was limited to correlation analysis of
131
the Parent Support Outside Homes Scale (PSOHS) with the modified Medical Outcomes Study
Social Support survey (MOS-SSS) (described in Chapter 8). Construct validity was not applicable
to this study.
7.2.2 Reliability
The reliability of an instrument is the degree of stability and reproducibility demonstrated over
time and with different methods of data collection (Aday & Cornelius 2011). Aday and
Cornelius (2011) and DeVellis (2011) describe two commonly used forms of reliability testing
that are applicable to this study: Internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability.
Internal consistency reliability
Internal consistency reliability is the extent that items within a scale are similar to each other
(DeVellis 2011). This is assessed through testing the inter-correlation between items; an
internally consistent scale is one where all items are highly correlated to one another (DeVellis
2011). DeVellis suggests that high inter-item correlations may mean either one of two things:
there is a causal relationship between the items or that the items share a common cause.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (Cronbach 1951) is commonly used as the measure for internal
consistency where ‘alpha’ is ‘an indication of the proportion of variance in the scale scores that
is attributable to the true score’(DeVellis 2011 p 108). A Cronbach alpha coefficient greater
than .7 indicates the scale items are measuring the same construct (Aday & Cornelius 2011).
Test-retest reliability
Test-retest reliability is assessed to measure the degree of an item and scale stability over
different time points (DeVellis 2011). Results at different time points should be comparable for
the scale to measure the variable or construct it is purporting to measure. Correlation of the
scores at the different time points is used along with Intra-Class Correlation (ICC) coefficients
for continuous variables and Kappa statistics for dichotomous variables.
Reliability for this study
In this study, internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
for: 1) validated scales in the main survey and 2) the new scale PSOHS in the pilot and main
survey. Test and retesting using Intra-Class Correlation coefficients was undertaken for the
PSOHS in the pilot as the same participants completed the same survey questions at two time
points. The pilot reliability testing is described in detail in Section 7.5 and the main survey
reliability is Section 8.3.
132
7.3 SURVEY ADMINISTRATION DESIGN
Survey administration refers to the way a questionnaire is designed, formatted and
administered to a target group. There is a growing body of literature around the importance of
selecting survey administration suitable for the target audience (Couper 2011; Lyberg et al.
2012). As the target participant group for this survey was parents with young children it was
decided to format and deliver the questionnaire as an online survey with the option of hard
copies if requested. Parents of young children are commonly very au fait with electronic
communication and uses (Madge & O'Connor 2006). Home internet access has been increasing
and during 2012-2013 the vast majority (96%) of households in Australia with children under
15 years of age, had the internet at home (ABS 2014b). However it is recognised that not all
parents who were a focus of this study may have internet access.
Qualtrics survey software (Qualtrics 2005) was used as it is a flexible software package for
online surveys that is widely used in social sciences research. Qualtrics survey software
enables the user to design and format a questionnaire. The software includes a variety of item
formatting templates and options, with extra formatting tools for editing and enhancing the
presentation, and also provides some descriptive and crosstab analysis tools. In addition, it
provides an online troubleshooting service for users and tools to assist in the administration of
the survey. The University of Western Australia has a license enabling the use of Qualtrics by
staff and postgraduate students.
As described by Dillman (2000), the design and formatting of a survey are important factors in
response rate and measurement error. Therefore, close attention was paid to the structure,
wording, clarity, font size, presentation and flow of items. Through the formatting phase
supervisors and other colleagues with expertise and/or who had young children provided
feedback (n = 6), which assisted with assessment of face and content validity. For example,
during this phase the wording of new items was tweaked to enhance clarity. The item pool of
the survey instrument has been discussed in chapter 6 and the questionnaire for the main
survey is in Appendix V.
7.4 PILOT STUDY, TEST AND RETEST
7.4.1 Sample and recruitment
Sample size calculation
Sample size is one of the “four variables involved in statistical inference: sample size (n),
significance criterion (alpha), population effect size (ES) and statistical power” where “each is a
133
function of the other three” (Cohen 1992p 156). Therefore, to determine the sample size, the
proposed alpha, ES and power need to be determined first (Cohen 1992).
“Power is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is
false (e.g. detecting a real difference), or the probability of making a correct decision.”
(Thomas & Nelson 2001 p 108)
Cohen (1992) and Thomas and Nelson (2001) propose an acceptable level of power to be 0.80.
Referring to Thomas and Nelson’s (2001 p 108) guide for determining sample size with power
of 0.80 (two-tailed alpha = .05) and a moderate effect size of 0.5, it was established that a
single grouping of 70 parents was appropriate for the purposes of assessing the scale and new
items in the pilot and retest.
Sample recruitment for pilot
The pilot study sought to recruit a minimum of 75 parents with at least one child between 0
and 5 years of age. Recruitment commenced in November 2012. The pilot required a survey
test (Time 1) and the retest of new items (Time 2). For the purposes of the pilot it was decided
to recruit through the School of Population Health at The University of Western Australia as
there were many postgraduate students and staff with young children. Hence it provided a
convenience sample applicable to the study scope for the pilot survey. An invitation to
participate in the pilot survey was sent through the staff and postgraduate student email lists.
The invitation outlined the aims of the study, pilot survey (test and retest) and provided the
direct electronic link to the survey. Participants were advised that they would need to provide
an email address in order to be sent the link to the retest, and that email addresses would
remain strictly confidential and be removed from the data once the pilot survey was complete.
Following completion of the pilot survey test (Time 1) participants were sent two weeks later
the electronic link to the retest (Time 2). The pilot survey test and retest period began in
November 2012 and was completed by January 2013. Participants completed the pilot survey
retest (Time 2) two to five weeks following completion of the pilot survey test. The delay for
some participants was possibly due to the Christmas holiday period.
7.4.2 Response rates and sample characteristics
In total, 81 participants completed the pilot survey test (Time 1) and 75 participants completed
the retest (Time 2). With matching participants from the pilot survey test (Time 1) with the
retest (Time 2) the final sample size was 73, as two of the participants who completed the
retest (Time 2) had incomplete data in the pilot survey test (Time 1), and were therefore not
included. The demographic characteristics of the pilot sample (n = 73) are presented in Table
134
7.1.
Table 7.1 Characteristics of pilot sample with at least one child 0-5 years of age (n=73)
n % Gender
Female 71 97.3 Male 2 2.7
Age in years 25-34 33 45.2 35 and older 40 54.8
Number of children in family (includes child under 5 years of age) 1 21 28.8 2 40 54.8 3 or more 12 16.4
Relationship status Married or living with partner 71 97.3 Single, separated or widowed 2 2.7
Place of birth Australia 54 74.0 Overseas 19 26.0
Language other than English spoken in the home Yes 9 12.3 No 64 87.7
Educational attainment Completed high school 2 2.7 Apprenticeship or equivalent qualification 7 9.6 University degree or higher degree 64 87.7
Employment status Full-time paid employment 11 15.1 Part-time paid employment 29 39.7 Casual/student/voluntary/unemployed 19 26.0 Home duties 14 19.2
Home ownership Own outright or with mortgage 60 82.2 Rent or other 9 12.3
Length of residence in current neighbourhood <3 years 19 26.1
3 years 54 73.9
Relocation within last 5 years – can indicate more than one move Moved within same suburb in Perth 8 11.0 Moved from another suburb in Perth 21 28.8 Moved to Perth from interstate 11 15.1 Moved to Perth from overseas 8 11.0 Have not moved within the last 5 years 33 45.2
7.5 PILOT AND RETEST VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY TESTING
As outlined in Chapter 6, original items were developed to explore different types of parent
support available from outside the home. Therefore, it was important to assess the validity
and reliability of these new items singularly and as a scale. A discussed in 7.2.1, face and
content validity was assessed with the help of colleagues who had expertise in the areas for
measurement, along with a careful search of relevant literature. Criterion validity is discussed
135
in Chapter 8 with the analysis from the main survey. Two tests for reliability were undertaken:
Test-retest reliability and internal consistency reliability. Test-retest reliability using Intraclass
Correlation Coefficients (ICC) for continuous variables was undertaken to test (Time 1) the pilot
participant scores of original items with a retest (Time 2) of those original items. Internal
consistency reliability with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was undertaken on the scale of 8 items
that formed the Parent Support Outside Home Scale (PSOHS) in the pilot and retest. An
exploratory factor analysis for the PSOHS scale is discussed with the reliability analysis from
the main survey results in Chapter 8.
Reliability analysis was undertaken using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version
21. Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) estimates less than 0.41 are considered low,
between 0.41 and 0.60 moderate, values between 0.61 and 0.80 are viewed as being in good
agreement, and values greater than 0.81 are considered in excellent agreement (Dawson &
Trapp). Cronbach coefficients between 0.70 and 0.80 are considered good, between 0.80 and
0.90 very good, and above 0.90 the scale may need shortening (DeVellis 2011).
7.5.1 Reliability results
Parent Support Outside Home Scale (PSOHS)
The Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) estimates assessing the reliability of the items as a
measure of parent social support available from outside the home are presented in Table 7.2.
The ICCs indicate moderate agreement as all fell within the range accepted in the literature
(ICC = 0.42 to 0.60), with one item (someone to help in a practical way) in good agreement (ICC
= 0.67). There a number of factors that may have precluded the items all performing with ICC
in the good agreement range. Firstly, this may reflect the possible changing nature of
perceived social support experienced by parents. For example, some days are more
challenging for parents, such as periods of difficult developmental child behaviours (two year
old tantrums) or illness. Therefore, it is plausible that perceived support may reflect less
challenging periods or difficult times when more actual support is either drawn on or when
support may not be accessible. The need for social support was an important finding in the
qualitative phase of this study for families with young children. Therefore, it is likely to be
commonly considered and reflected upon by parents. However, the wording and options of
the scale, which is modelled on the MOS-SSS (Sherbourne & Stewart 1991) may not elicit
tighter retest responses as it asks more general perceptions rather than asking for specific
incidences and quotas of social support. Further discussion on the implications and limitations
of social support measures for families with young children is presented in Chapter 10.
136
Table 7.2 Pilot test-retest reliability for Parent Support Outside Home Scale (PSOHS) items
Parent Support Outside Home Scale (PSOHS) item (n = 73) ICC 95% CI
Someone to:
give you good advice about your child’s behaviour 0.46 0.26-0.62
help in a practical way with your children 0.67 0.52-0.78
help in a practical way if you/ your child/ other family member unwell 0.60 0.43-0.73
share the joys of parenting with 0.49 0.29-0.65
share the concerns of parenting with 0.52 0.33-0.67
learn with about parenting by sharing experiences 0.50 0.31-0.66
give or direct you to information on parenting 0.42 0.22-0.59
makes you feel like you are doing a good job as a parent 0.52 0.33-0.67
The internal consistency reliability of the Parent Support Outside Home Scale (PSOHS) was
assessed using Cronbach alpha coefficient. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for the pilot was
0.945 (n = 73), and in the retest 0.927 (n = 73), which indicates good internal consistency. The
pilot test inter-item correlation range was 0.46 to 0.95 (Mean = 0.69). Analysis of Cronbach’s
alpha with deletion of individual items resulted in a Cronbach alpha range from 0.933 to 0.946.
The means for the pilot and retest are presented in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3 Parent Support Outside Home Scale Means for pilot test and retest
Parent Support Outside Home Scale (PSOHS) means (n = 73) Test Retest
Someone to: Mean SD Mean SD
give you good advice about your child’s behaviour 3.71 1.02 3.75 0.79
help in a practical way with your children 3.40 1.15 3.16 1.04
help in a practical way if you/ your child/other family member unwell 3.32 1.08 3.11 1.16
share the joys of parenting with 3.96 1.02 4.11 0.86
share the concerns of parenting with 4.03 0.96 4.05 0.83
learn with about parenting by sharing experiences 3.99 0.92 3.92 0.86
give or direct you to information on parenting 3.78 0.99 3.74 0.88
who makes you feel like you are doing a good job as a parent 3.82 0.96 3.71 0.89
A high mean score indicates a high score for available social support for that item.
7.6 MAIN SURVEY
Ethics approval for the main survey incorporating an amendment to enable use of online
resources for recruitment was confirmed 22nd February 2013 by the Human Research Ethics
137
Office at The University of Western Australia.
7.6.1 Sample and recruitment
Sample size calculation
The study aimed to investigate subgroups according to participation and non-participation in
mothers’ groups and playgroups in locations either inside or outside the local area. Therefore,
a sample size was needed that would provide sufficient power to detect subgroup (n = 2 to 3)
differences. For example, playgroups subgroups would be: participation in playgroup locally,
participation in playgroup outside local area and non-participation (n = 3).
A proposed acceptable level of power is 0.80 (Cohen 1992; Thomas & Nelson 2001).Therefore,
referring to Thomas and Nelson’s (2001 p 108) guide for determining sample size with power
0.80 (two-tailed alpha = .05) and a moderate effect size of 0.5, it was estimated that the main
survey sample size would need to include 450 participants.
Sample recruitment
Following the pilot (test and retest) and survey amendments the main survey was launched in
March 2013. Family composition criteria for respondents of the main survey was limited to
parents who had at least one child 0 to 5 years of age, however, respondents could also have
older children. The recruitment process is summarised in Figure 7.1.
Recruitment was initially undertaken through a random sample of 75 groups and centres from
a collated list of 180 playgroups, child and family day care centres, and preschool programs in
the three local government areas (LGAs) identified in the conceptual stage of the study design
and were the three LGAs used in the qualitative phase. Initial contact with the 75 randomly
selected playgroups, child and family day care centres and preschool programs was made by
telephone. This was followed up with an email that outlined the objectives of the study and
included a letter (Appendix IV) requesting assistance to advise their family membership of the
survey. Groups or centres that agreed to assist were then provided with promotional material.
138
Figure 7.1 Summary of survey recruitment process
Promotional materials included postcards with fridge magnets and posters with the graphic
and webpage link as shown in Figure 7.2. Alternatively, an email which included an invitation
to participate along with the postcard graphic and the direct link to the survey was provided to
groups or centres that preferred to communicate with the family membership electronically
(Appendix IV). The graphic in Figure 7.2 illustrates a local community scene of families with
young children interacting in a park.
If a group or centre declined another was randomly selected and contacted to seek support in
promoting the survey. In total, 100 groups and centres participated in a random selection for
recruitment assistance. In addition, the Health Department of Western Australia granted
permission to promote the survey in the waiting rooms of identified child health centres in the
newer areas of the three LGAs. Child health nurses at the 18 child health centres were
provided with a promotional poster along with postcards for their waiting rooms.
1
•A random selection of playgroups, childcare centres and family daycare centres in the three designated LGAs (n=75) were contacted to promote survey
2
•Child Health Nurses working in newer residential areas with the three LGAs received promotional material for waiting rooms (n=18)
3
•Expanded scope where possible to all playgroups, childcare and family daycare centres in newer residential areas in the three designated LGAs
4
•Expanded scope to 10 LGAs of Perth's greater metropolitan region that had newer residential areas.
5
•Playgroups, childcare and family daycare centres in newer residential areas were contacted. Final number = 77 playgroups and 204 childcare and family daycare centres ( total n=281)
6
•Contacted all state (n=108) and private (n=53) primary schools in the 10 LGAs that were within or near newer residential areas . Requested assistance to inform their family membership through school newsletters
7 •Contacted the 10 LGAs staff who had a role in family and child services. Requested assistance to
promote survey through their networks
8
•Contacted agencies and websites with a focus on families with young children . Requested assistance to promote survey through newsletters and/or Facebook pages.
9
•Attended three facilitated playgroups and two library sessions, Two sessions had internet access and enabled completion of the survey online at the visit.
10
•Attended four large community family events in parks and schools with promotional material, hardcopies of survey .
139
Figure 7.2 Postcard and poster graphic for main survey recruitment
The response rate to the initial randomly selected recruitment strategy was poor (n = 37) and
it was decided to broaden the scope, where possible, to all playgroups, childcare centres,
family day cares and other relevant group in the three designated local government areas.
Therefore, random selection was stopped and all 180 groups and centres on the collated list
were contacted.
The response rate continued to remain low and further actions were undertaken to improve
the response rate. Consequently, another seven local government catchments with newer
residential areas in the outer suburbs of Perth were identified, explored and targeted for
opportunities to promote the survey; for example, through playgroups, childcare centres and
local government early childhood staff and services. Contact details were obtained from local
government sources, Playgroup WA and child care online sources. All identified playgroups,
child care centres and other early childhood services were contacted by telephone. This was
followed up with an email that outlined the objectives of the study and included a letter
(Appendix IV) requesting assistance to advise their family membership of the survey and the
survey electronic link. At this point a total of 10 LGAs were targeted. Recruitment improved
but remained slow. Local government early childhood staff assisted through newsletters and
early year programs in which they were involved. At this point some of the playgroups had
posted the survey link on their Facebook page. In total, the number of playgroups contacted =
77, and child or family day care centres contacted = 204.
140
In addition to the dissemination through playgroups and early childhood services contact was
made with all state (n = 108) and private (n = 53) primary schools in the 10 LGAs that were
either within or adjacent to newer residential areas. Schools were phoned to confirm the
Principal’s name and where possible to speak to the Principal. A personal email (Appendix IV)
was sent to each Principal with a request for assistance in advising their family membership of
the survey through the community section of the school newsletter. Many of the schools were
very supportive and recruitment improved. In addition, agencies such as Playgroup WA and an
online parent information website with a focus on families with young children were
approached for assistance to promote the survey through including it in their newsletters on
postings on Facebook pages. A full list of agencies and services is provided in Appendix IV.
Furthermore, early childhood staff working for the LGAs often extended invitations to attend
early year events for families in their areas so recruitment could be further enhanced. I
attended a facilitated playgroup on two occasions in a library where parents were able to go
online and participate in the survey, and two other story time sessions in another library
where postcards were handed out and parents were encouraged to participate. I attended
four large open events in parks and schools for families, and wandered around talking to
parents and handed out either postcards with the webpage for the electronic link or
hardcopies of the survey with a reply paid envelope for those who preferred a hardcopy. In
total 150 hardcopies were handed out and 39 completed hardcopy questionnaires were
returned.
This completes the description of recruitment strategies. The final survey sample obtained is
described in Chapter 8. An overview of the quantitative analysis techniques is described below.
7.7 OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
Data analysis was conducted using SPSS Version 21. Minimum group sample size for analysis
was set to n = 30. Statistical significance was set at 0.05 (two-tailed). Normality of variables
was assessed and where distributions were non-normal non-parametric testing was conducted
to confirm results.
Independence of categorical variables was tested using Chi-square tests with Yate’s correction
for continuity. For normally and non-normally distributed continuous variables, respectively:
bivariate correlations were tested with Pearson r and Spearman rho; t-tests and Mann-
Whitney U tests were used to investigate group differences between two groups; and analysis
of variance (ANOVA) and Kruskall-Wallis tests were used to test group differences when there
were more than two groups. Tukey HSD was used to conduct post-hoc analyses. Independent
141
sample t-tests were followed up with effect size statistics to indicate the importance of the
difference between the means independent of sample size. These statistics provide another
assessment of the meaningfulness of the findings (Pallant 2011): Cohen’s d values of 0.2, 0.5
and 0.8 indicate small, moderate and large effects, respectively.
Factor analysis of the developed scale (PSOHS) was undertaken using Principal Axis Factoring
(PAF) as it is suitable for exploring the structure of a set of variables for sub sets that account
common variance.
Linear regression analysis was used to investigate trends and non-normal distributions were
logged to normalise residual plots as required. Multivariable regression analysis was used to
explore the relationship of a number of variables and potential confounders on the dependent
variables of interest.
7.8 CHAPTER SUMMARY
In this chapter the principles of validity and reliability and the application to this study were
defined and discussed. The pilot survey which involved a test (Time 1) of all items and a retest
(Time 2) of new items and scale was outlined and reliability testing was reported. Recruitment
for the pilot survey and main survey samples was described and a summary of the analysis
techniques to be used was provided. In Chapters 8 and 9 the results of the quantitative
analysis and reliability testing of the main survey are described.
142
143
CHAPTER 8
QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
DESCRIPTIVE FINDINGS AND RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SOCIAL
CAPITAL, SOCIAL SUPPORT AND WELLBEING MEASURES:
AND ASSOCIATIONS WITH LENGTH OF RESIDENCE
8.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter commences with a description of the demographic characteristics of survey
respondents, descriptive findings for variables, and internal consistency reliability results for
scales. It also includes a description of the correlation analysis for the key dependent variables:
Neighbourhood cohesion index (NCI), Families, social capital and citizenship survey (FSCCS),
Medical outcomes study – social support survey (MOS-SSS), Parent support outside home scale
(PSOHS), local participation and reciprocity, and Warwick Edinburgh mental wellbeing scale
(WEMWBS). This includes a factor analysis of the newly developed scale PSOHS. The
associations for length of residence on key dependent variables were analysed for trends and
differences between two groups (length of residence <3 years and 3 years), and relocation
categories were measured.
8.2 DATA MANAGEMENT AND FINAL SAMPLE
The online survey was administered between March 2013 and January 8th 2014. Although the
survey link was activated 824 times there were over 200 people who only viewed the survey or
completed a small number of items and these cases were removed. In addition, families with
all their children older than five years were removed. There remained 478 completed online
surveys and 39 hardcopies with minimal missing data (total n = 517). However, the sample also
contained 28 participants from regional Western Australia and interstate areas. These were
also removed as the number was not large enough to be considered as a subgroup for any
variable. The final sample for the purpose of analysis comprised 489 participants (with at least
one child aged 0-5 years) who resided within the Greater Perth Region (Two Rocks to
144
Mandurah). The demographic characteristics of the final main survey sample (n = 489) are
presented in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1 Demographic characteristics of the main survey sample of parents with at least one
child 0-5 years of age (n=489)
N %
Gender Female 466 95.5 Male 22 4.5
Age of parents (n=488) 18-29 113 23.1 30-39 300 61.5 40 and older 75 15.4
Number of children in 1 165 33.7 2 217 44.4 3 or more 107 21.9
Families with oldest child 0 to 5 years 344 70.3 6 to 17 years 145 29.7
Relationship status (n=488) Married or living with partner 460 94.3 Single, separated, divorced or widowed 28 5.7
Place of birth (n=486) Australia 326 67.1 Overseas 160 32.9
Language other than English in home (n=488) Yes 53 10.9 No 435 89.1
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (n=488) Yes 3 0.6 No 485 99.4
Education attained (n=487) High school year <10 to year 12 99 20.3 Apprenticeship or equivalent qualification 151 31.0 University or higher degree 237 48.7
Employment status (n=486) Full-time employment 70 14.4 Part-time employment 146 30.0 Casual/Student/voluntary/unemployed 63 13.0 Home duties 207 42.6
Home ownership (n=488) Own outright or with mortgage 365 74.8 Rent or other 123 25.2
Postcode distance from CBD of Perth 0-15 km from CBD 82 16.7 15-30 km from CBD 284 58.1 30 km plus from CBD (in metro area) 123 25.2
Age of residential area (n=487) <10 years 296 60.8
10 years 191 39.2
Length of residence in current suburb <3 years 229 46.8
3 years 260 53.2
CBD (Central Business District)
145
The majority of the participants were female (95.5%), aged between 30 and 39 years (61.5%),
married or living with a partner (94.3%), had one to two children (78.1%), owned their own
home outright or with mortgage (74.8%), lived further than 15 km from the centre of Perth
(83.3%) and resided in residential areas developed within the last 10 years (60.8%). For nearly
half of the participants the oldest child was 0 to 3 years of age (49.5%) while all participants
had at least one child five years of age or younger. Therefore, the participants in this sample
are parents predominantly families with very young children.
The majority (93%) of the participants reported they had found out about the survey through
either an email or a website such as a Facebook page. This included the following sources:
mothers’ group or playgroup (29%), other community group/event (28%), schools (15%),
friends and family (13%), childcare centre (10%), and child health clinics and local government
(5%).
8.3 DEPENDENT VARIABLES
Normality of the scale data was examined prior to testing internal consistence and reliability
(Section 8.3.1) and producing descriptive statistics for key dependent variables (section 8.3.2).
The means, standard deviations, medians and interquartile range of the dependent variables
are presented in Table 8.2. Normal distributions were determined for the NCI, FSCCS and
WEMWBS scales. The MOS-SSS and PSOHS were left skewed (most values towards the high
end). Total reciprocity and local participation scores were right skewed (most values towards
the low end). Analyses with these skewed variables were confirmed with non-parametric
methods, and scores were log transformed for regression analysis.
Table 8.2 Descriptive results of continuous and interval dependent variables
Dependent variables N Mean SD Median IQ Range
Buckner’s Neighbourhood Cohesion Index (NCI)
487 59.77 14.27 61.00 20.00
Social capital-4 items (FSCCS) 489 13.56 2.72 14.00 3.00
MOS Social support survey- 13 items adapted (MOS-SSS)
485 49.35 11.94 51.00 19.00
Parent Support Outside Home Scale (PSOHS)
482 35.01 9.60 36.50 13.25
Total local participation score 489 2.84 2.20 3.00 3.00
Total reciprocity score 489 5.78 5.01 4.00 8.50
Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS)
488 51.67 7.99 52.00 9.00
146
8.3.1 Reliability of validated scales and items
The internal consistency for each scale is described below. As described in Chapter 7
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were computed for all scales. Additionally factor analysis was
undertaken for the new scale developed for this study (PSOHS).
Buckner’s Neighbourhood Cohesion Index (NCI)
The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the 18 item Buckner’s Neighbourhood Cohesion Index was
0.94 (n = 487). This is congruent with the NCI Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.95 obtained by
Bucker (1988) and of 0.91 by Robinson and Wilkinson (1995).
Social capital – 4 items (Families, Social Capital and Citizenship Survey)
This scale was formed from four items from the Families, Social Capital and Citizenship Survey
(FSCCS) (Stone & Hughes 2002). Its reliability as a scale has not previously been reported in
the literature. However, in this study the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the four item scale
was 0.73 (n = 489), which indicates that the items are measuring the same construct (Aday &
Cornelius 2011). In this study a composite score of the four items was used in analysis; as
applied in the LSAC study (Zubrick et al. 2008).
Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey – 13 items adapted (MOS-SSS)
The adapted scale of 13 items from the MOS-SSS has been used previously in the RESIDE study
(Giles-Corti et al. 2008). The internal consistency reliability was tested in this study. The
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the 13 item MOS social support scale was 0.97 (n = 485). This
finding sits slightly above reported Cronbach alpha coefficients for the original 19 item MOS-
SSS of 0.91 (Sherbourne & Stewart 1991) and 0.96 (Gjesfjeld, Greeno & Kim 2008). Other
abbreviated versions of the MOS-SSS have reported Crochbach alpha coefficients from 0.83 to
0.94 (Gjesfjeld, Greeno & Kim 2008).
Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS)
The 14 item version of the WEMWBS was used in this study. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
was 0.92 (n = 488). This sits slightly above other reported WEMWBS Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient scores of between 0.83 and 0.91 found by the developers of the tool (Tennant et al.
2007).
147
8.3.2 Reliability and factor analysis of new scale
Parent Support Outside Home Scale (PSOHS)
The PSOHS was a new scale developed for this study. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the
PSOHS was 0.95 (n = 482). As described in Chapter 7, the pilot Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
were 0.94 (test) and 0.93 (retest) respectively. Table 8.3 lists the means and inter-item
correlations for the PSOHS measures. The inter-item correlation range was 0.53 to 0.92.
Analysis of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient with deletion of individual items resulted in a
Cronbach alpha coefficient range from 0.947 to 0.953. Therefore, there were no indications
that any items warranted removal. Examination of the means (Table 8.3) indicated that
participants reported lower levels of support from outside the home for instrumental support;
for example, someone to help in a practical way with your children (M = 3.13, SD = 1.22), if you
are unwell (M = 3.03, SD = 1.26), your child or other family member unwell (M = 3.12, SD =
1.26), compared to the other forms of support (M range = 3.54 to 3.81, SD = 1.07 to 1.12). The
other forms of support included informational, emotional, appraisal and companionship.
Factor analysis of PSOHS items
An exploratory factor analysis was undertaken to identify the inter-relationships between
items in the PSOHS. Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) was undertaken. Prior to running the PAF
analysis the normal distribution of the item measures was determined. Some of the items
were positively skewed; however, due to the robustness of factor analysis (Allen & Bennett
2010) it was decided to proceed with the PAF. The Kayser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy (KMO Index) was 0.92 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity indicated a chi-square of
5522.85; both values were significant (p = < 0.001) and indicated factor analysis was an
appropriate investigation.
Two factors (with eigenvalues exceeding 1) were identified as underlying the 10 item scale
(Table 8.4). In total, these factors accounted for 78.39% of the variance in the 10 item scale.
Table 8.4 presents the rotated factor structure of each factor (sub-scale). The items that load
heavily onto Factor 1 (indicated in bold) are to do mainly with information, emotional and
companionship support, while the items that load heavily onto Factor 2 are mainly to do with
instrumental support.
148
Table 8.3 Means and inter-item correlations for PSOHS
Parent Support Outside Home Scale (n = 486) Mean Std.Dev. Items
Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Someone to give good advice about your child’s behaviour e.g. feeding 3.54 1.07 -
2. Someone to help in a practical way with your children e.g. child minding or care 3.13 1.22 0.58 -
3. Someone to help in a practical way if your child or other member is unwell 3.12 1.26 0.55 0.86 -
4. Someone to help in a practical way if you are unwell 3.03 1.26 0.53 0.81 0.92 -
5. Someone to share the joys of parenting with 3.81 1.09 0.57 0.55 0.60 0.60 -
6. Someone to share the concerns of parenting with 3.79 1.07 0.63 0.58 0.60 0.59 0.92 -
7. Someone to learn with about parenting by sharing experiences 3.71 1.10 0.68 0.61 0.62 0.60 0.81 0.86 -
8. Someone to give you information or direct you to information on parenting 3.54 1.12 0.74 0.60 0.61 0.60 0.70 0.76 0.81 -
9. Someone who makes you feel like you are doing a good job as a parent 3.62 1.10 0.61 0.60 0.63 0.63 0.76 0.79 0.77 0.73 -
10. Someone for you and your children to spend time with 3.72 1.10 0.58 0.59 0.62 0.60 0.76 0.79 0.78 0.71 0.76
149
Table 8.4 Varimax rotated factor structure of the 10 item scale PSOHS
Parent Support Outside Home Scale means (n = 486) Loadings
Factor 1 Factor 2
Someone to give you good advice about your child’s behaviour .612 .387
Someone to help in a practical way with your children .387 .788
Someone to help in a practical way if your child or other family member unwell
.354 .918
Someone to help in a practical way if you are unwell .370 .851
Someone to share the joys of parenting with .828 .319
Someone to share the concerns of parenting with .896
Someone to learn with about parenting by sharing experiences .856 .346
Someone to give you information or direct you to information on parenting
.762 .387
Someone who makes you feel like you are doing a good job as a parent .756 .402
Someone for you and your children together to spend time with .762 .378
Percentage of Variance 47.38% 31.01%
8.3.3 Dependent variable items from other sources and surveys
Participation and reciprocity in the local community
The participation and reciprocity measures were modified from those used elsewhere (Giles-
Corti et al. 2008) to reflect the lives of families with young children. As discussed in chapter 6
these scores reflect the number of categories for reciprocity and local community participation
involved within the last 12 months as reported by the participants.
Examination of the local participation means (Table 8.2) indicates that participants were, on
average, involved in 2.80 categories (maximum possible score = 16) of participation in the local
area during the 12 months previous to the survey. Participation outside the local area was
excluded from this analysis. The standard deviation was 2.20 with a kurtosis score of 2.85
indicating a higher distribution than normal distribution of scores around the mean.
Examination of the reciprocity means (Table 8.2) indicates that participants were on average,
involved in 5.84 categories (maximum possible score = 22) of reciprocity in their
neighbourhood during the 12 months previous to the survey. As described in Chapter 6,
reciprocity categories are twofold. Therefore, if a participant had received as well as provided
‘care of a child’ then that activity is scored as two categories. The standard deviation was 5.00
with a kurtosis score of -0.73 indicating a slightly wider than normal distribution of scores
around the mean.
150
8.4 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DEPENDENT VARIABLES
A focus of this study was to explore the relationships between social capital and social support
measures and mental wellbeing. Therefore, correlation analysis was undertaken to measure
the strength of the relationships between the dependent variables: Buckner’s Neighbourhood
Cohesion Index (NCI), Families, Social Capital and Citizenship Survey (FSCCS), Medical Outcome
Study – Social Support Survey (MOS-SSS), Parent Support Outside Home Scale (PSOHS), Local
participation, Reciprocity, and the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS).
Bivariate Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r) were calculated (Table 8.5).
Table 8.5 Pearson correlation coefficients for dependent variables
NCI FSCCS MOS- SSS
PSOHS Local
participation Reciprocity WEMWBS
NCI 1.00
FSCCS 0.66**
MOS-SSS 0.26** 0.25**
PSOHS 0.30** 0.26** 0.71**
Local participation
0.43** 0.42** 0.11* 0.16**
Reciprocity 0.65** 0.42** 0.19** 0.20** 0.43**
WEMWBS 0.21** 0.16* 0.52** 0.42** 0.14* 0.14* 1.00
** correlation is significant at the <0.001 level (2-tailed) * correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Positive and strong correlations were found between the two social support variables MSOS-
SSS and PSOHS, r = .71; between the NCI and FSCCS social capital, r = .66; between NCI and
reciprocity scores, r = .65; and between MOS-SSS and WEMWBS, r = 52. All other pairs of
variables showed significant moderate or small positive correlations. There were no changes in
significance levels with Spearman’s rho correlation analysis for the dependent variables with
non-normal distributions (MOS-SSS, PSOHS, Local participation and Reciprocity).
The relationships between the dependent variables are presented diagrammatically in Figures
8.1 and 8.2. As shown in Figure 8.1, the relationship between neighbourhood cohesion and
other social capital measures (FSCCS, reciprocity, local participation) are moderate to strong.
Although the direction of influence in these relationships cannot be determined from cross-
sectional data, the significant findings indicate that these measures impact on one another.
Therefore, experiences of reciprocity are likely to influence perceptions of neighbourhood
cohesiveness and vice versa.
151
Figure 8.1 Correlations between four social capital measures
As shown in Figure 8.2 there is a strong relationship between the two social support variables
(MOS-SSS and PSOHS) and moderate relationships between these two social support variables
and NCI and WEMWBs. A stronger relationship was observed between the WEMWBS and
MOS-SSS (r =0.52) than with PSOHS (r =0.42).
Figure 8.2 Correlations between social support measures with mental wellbeing and
neighbourhood cohesion
r = .66 r = .65
r = .43
r = .42 r = .43
Neighbourhood Cohesion
Index (NCI)
Reciprocity
Local participation
Families, Social Capital
and Citizenship Survey
(FSCCS)
r = .42 r = .30
r = .71
r = .52 r = .26
Parent Support Outside Home Scale
(PSOHS)
Neighbourhood Cohesion
Index (NCI)
Medical Outcome Study –
Social Support Scale (MOS-SSS)
Warwick Edinburgh
Mental Well-being
Scale (WEMWBS)
152
8.5 OTHER VARIABLES OF INTEREST
In addition to the dependent variables there were another two items used to assess 1) overall
social support external to the home and 2) general health status, as described in Section 6.4.1.
The results relating to these items are summarised below.
8.5.1 Overall support external to the home
An item from the Australian Life Course Survey (ALCS) was used to measure perceptions of
overall support external to the home (AIFS 1996). The findings are presented in Table 8.6. This
item has previously been used in the LSAC study (Zubrick et al. 2008). In the LSAC analysis for
this question, the scores were merged for ‘I don’t get enough help’ and ‘I don’t get any help’ to
form a single score that reflected the ‘feeling of not receiving enough support’ (Zubrick et al.
2008). Adapting this LSAC approach in this study resulted in 33.8% of participants reporting
not receiving enough support (I don’t get enough help 24.8%, I don’t get any help at all 9%).
This is higher than the LSAC study which found that “almost one-quarter” of primary care-
givers reported either not getting enough help or not getting any help at all (Zubrick et al. 2008
p 19).
The LSAC study also removed from further analysis those who reported that they did not need
any help. An alternative approach was taken in this study whereby ‘I get enough help’ was
combined with ‘I don’t need any help’ to form a single score, as the two both present the view
that ‘no more help is needed’. Therefore, analysis of this variable was limited to two
categories.
Table 8.6 Overall support from family and friends outside the home
Overall, how do you feel about the amount of support or help you get from friends or family living outside the home?
N %
I get enough help or I don’t need any help 323 66.2
I don’t get enough help or I don’t get any help 165 33.8
8.5.2 General health status
Perception of general health status (Stewart, Hays & Ware 1988) was reported by participants
as: excellent (20.9%), very good (42.7%), good (28.0%), fair (6.1%) and poor (2.2%). Overall,
91.6% of participants rated their general health as good, very good or excellent.
153
8.6 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN RELOCATION AND DEPENDENT
VARIABLES
8.6.1 Relocation descriptive analysis
Two survey variables were used to measure relocation: 1) mobility within the past five years;
and 2) length of residence in current suburb. These results are presented in Table 8.7.
With regard to mobility, the majority of participants had experienced at least one move within
the last five years. As indicated in Table 8.7, 71% of participants had moved house, 59.3% had
moved between suburbs or within the same suburbs, and 25.4% had moved to Perth from
regional Western Australia, interstate or overseas. As participants were able to indicate more
than one type of relocation within the past five years the tally is greater than 100%. The total
number of moves was not quantifiable as participants were not asked how many times they
experienced a particular move; for example, more than one move inside the same suburb
within the five years. Therefore, analysis is limited to a frequency of mobility categories within
the past five years rather than the number of total moves a participant may have experienced.
In terms of length of residence, 46.8% of participants have lived in their current suburb for less
than three years, while 53.2% of participants have lived in their current suburb three years or
greater.
Table 8.7 Relocation variables: mobility during last 5 years and length of residence
Mobility in the last 5 years (n = 489) N %
Moved within the same suburb in Perth 53 10.8
Moved from another suburb in Perth 237 48.5
Moved to Perth from regional or rural WA 29 5.9
Moved to Perth from interstate 37 7.6
Moved to Perth from overseas 58 11.9
Doesn’t apply/did not move 142 29.0
Length of residence in current suburb? (n = 489)
Less than one year 67 13.7
1 to 3 years 162 33.1
3 to 5 years 96 19.6
5 to 7 years 79 16.2
More than 7 years 85 17.4
154
8.6.2 Group analysis for length of residence in current suburb
To assess whether there were any key demographic differences between those residents who
had lived less than three years in their current suburb compared to those who had lived three
years or longer Chi-square tests were conducted. Participants were divided into two groups:
group 1) length of residence less than 3 years (n = 229), and group 2) length of residence
greater than 3 years (n = 260) (Table 8.8).
The Chi-square test was significant for: age of the oldest child, 2 (1, n = 489) = 4.26, p = 0.039;
place of birth, 2 (1, n = 486) = 26.82, p <0.001; and home ownership, 2 (1, n = 488) = 55.88, p
<0.001. Results (Table 8.8) indicate that those who had lived less than three years in their
current suburb were significantly more likely to have the oldest child from 0 to 3 years of age,
were born overseas and were not home owners (outright and mortgaged).
Trends with length of residence
To assess whether there were trends over time in length of residence (five groups) for the
dependent variables, linear regression was used. The means of the dependent variables
according to length of residence (5 groups) are displayed in Table 8.9. It is possible the much
lower means for reciprocity and local participation in the first year of residence may reflect the
short period of time the participants had lived in their suburb; for example, some participants
may have only just moved into their suburb.
Variables with non-normal distributions (MOS-SSS, PSOHS, local participation and reciprocity)
were logged for the regression. Significance was detected for NCI, p = 0.004; FSCCS, p = 0.006;
Local participation, p = 0.001, and Reciprocity, p <0.001 (Table 8.9).That is, there were
statistically significant increases in the scores for these variables as length of residence
increased.
However, linear regression models adjusted for age of oldest child and home ownership (as
directed by Chi-square analysis in Table 8.8) removed the significant trend for length of
residence on NCI, p = 0.161 and Local participation, p = 0.092, indicating the impact of these
demographic variables. In contrast, for FSCCS, p = 0.025 and Reciprocity, p = 0.001, the
significant trend persisted, which indicated that the age of the oldest child and home
ownership did not impact on the effect of length of residence (Table 8.9). Place of birth, while
indicated in the Chi-square analysis, was removed from the model as no effects were detected.
155
Table 8.8 Demographic characteristics by length of residence groups (< 3 years and 3 years)
Parents (n=489) Length of residence < 3 years (n=229)
Length of residence 3 years (n=260)
p
N % N %
Gender (n=488) >0.999 Female 218 95.6 248 95.4 Male 10 4.4 12 4.6
Age of parents (n=488) 0.120 18-29 62 27.2 51 19.6 30-39 135 59.2 165 63.5 40 and older 31 13.6 44 16.9
No. children in family 0-17 (n=489) 0.051 1 88 38.4 77 29.6 2 100 43.7 117 45.0 3 or more 41 17.9 66 25.4
Age of oldest child (n=489) 0.039 0 to 5 172 75.1 172 66.2 6 to 17 57 24.9 88 33.8
Relationship status (n=488) 0.596 Married or living with partner 214 93.4 246 95.0 Single, separated, divorced or widowed 15 6.6 13 5.0
Place of birth (n = 486) <0.001 Australia 125 55.1 201 77.6 Overseas 102 44.9 58 22.4
Education attained (n=487) 0.324 High school year <10 to year 12 53 23.2 46 17.8 TAFE, apprenticeship or equivalent qual 68 29.8 83 32.0 University or higher degree 107 46.9 130 50.2
Employment status (n=486) 0.162 Full-time paid 31 13.7 39 15.1 Part-time paid 58 25.6 88 34.0 Casual, student, voluntary, unemployed 32 14.1 31 12.0 Home duties 106 46.7 101 39.0
Home ownership (n=488) <0.001 Own outright or with mortgage 135 59.0 230 88.8 Rent or other 94 41.0 29 11.2
Postcode distance from Perth CBD (n=489) 0.396 0-15km 38 16.6 44 16.9 15-30km 127 55.5 157 60.4 >30km (in metro area) 64 27.9 59 22.7
Age of residential area (n=487) 0.224 <10years 145 63.9 151 58.1
10years 82 36.1 109 41.9
p values from Chi-square tests CBD (Central Business District)
156
Table 8.9 Means and regression results for length of residence on NIC, FSCCS, MOS-SSS,
PSOHS, Local participation, reciprocity and WEMWBS
N Mean Std. Dev. Unadjusted trend p
Adjusted** trend p
Neighbourhood Cohesion Index (NCI) 0.004 0.161
<1 year 65 56.74 12.25
1-3 years 162 58.30 15.14
3-5 years 96 60.68 13.07
5-7 years 79 61.71 14.68
>7 years 85 62.08 14.50
Social capital (FSCCS) 0.006 0.025
<1 year 67 12.98 3.03
1-3 years 162 13.33 2.71
3-5 years 96 13.74 2.43
5-7 years 79 13.72 3.10
>7 years 85 14.09 2.30
Medical Outcomes Study-Social Support Survey (MOS-SSS) 0.865
<1 year 67 47.98 13.02
1-3 years 160 49.84 11.70
3-5 years 196 50.05 11.46
5-7 years 77 50.44 11.48
>7 years 85 47.70 12.41
Parent Support Outside Home Scale (PSOHS) 0.543
<1 year 66 32.45 10.77
1-3 years 156 35.14 8.84
3-5 years 96 36.59 9.43
5-7 years 79 36.09 9.52
>7 years 85 33.95 9.93
Local participation score 0.001 0.092
<1 year 67 2.07 1.92
1-3 years 162 2.83 2.26
3-5 years 96 2.85 1.87
5-7 years 79 3.01 2.44
>7 years 85 3.30 2.31
Reciprocity score <0.001 0.001
<1 year 67 2.92 3.64
1-3 years 162 5.68 4.88
3-5 years 96 6.46 4.79
5-7 years 79 6.51 5.45
>7 years 85 6.74 5.28
Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS) 0.859
<1 year 67 50.82 8.13
1-3 years 161 52.41 8.38
3-5 years 96 51.14 7.26
5-7 years 79 51.78 7.46
>7 years 85 51.41 8.41
* Adjusted for age of oldest child and home ownership
157
Length of residence difference as two groups
Independent sample t-tests were conducted to investigate further the potential impact of
length of residence (< 3 years and 3years) on the variables which had a significant linear
trend: NCI, FSCCS, local participation and reciprocity scores. There were significant differences
for NCI, t (487) = -2.80, p = 0.005; FSCCS, t (489) = -2.53, p = 0.012; local participation, t (489) =
-2.23, p = 0.026; and reciprocity, t (489) = -3.76, p = < 0.001 (Table 8.10). There were no
changes in significance with Mann-Whitney test analysis for the dependent variables with non-
normal distributions (Local participation and Reciprocity).
Table 8.10 Means for neighbourhood cohesion, social capital, local participation, reciprocity
and wellbeing for length of residence in two groups
N Mean Std. Dev. p Cohen’s d
Buckner’s Neighbourhood Cohesion Index (NCI) 0.005 0.25
Resident in current suburb <3 years 227 57.85 14.36
Resident in current suburb 3 years 260 61.45 14.00
Social Capital (FSCCS) 0.012 0.23
resident in current suburb <3 years 229 13.23 2.80
Resident in current suburb 3 years 260 13.85 2.61
Local participation 0.026 0.20
Resident in current suburb <3 years 229 2.61 2.19
Resident in current suburb 3years 260 3.05 2.20
Reciprocity <0.001 0.34
Resident in current suburb <3 years 229 4.88 4.72
Resident in current suburb 3 years 260 6.57 5.14
Examination of the means (Table 8.10) indicated that those who lived 3 years or greater in
their current suburb scored significantly higher for NCI, FSCCS, local participation and
reciprocity than those who lived less than three years in their current suburb.
8.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY
In this chapter the demographic characteristics of the final data set, and the descriptive and
correlation findings of the dependent variables (NCI, FSCCS, MOS-SSS, PSOHS, local
participation, reciprocity and WEMWBS) were presented. Reliability analyses of the dependent
variables and a factor analysis of the newly developed scale PSOHS were reported. Relocation
was explored through mobility and length of residence analysis. Length of residence was
examined for trends and as two groups (<3 years and 3 years in current suburb) for
dependent and demographic variables. Length of residence key findings indicate that those
participants who had lived three years or longer in their current suburb scored significantly
158
higher levels of social capital measures (NCI, FSCCS, local participation, reciprocity). The
association between participation in mothers’ groups and playgroups with the dependent
variables, which includes length of residence as a control variable is described in Chapter 9. A
discussion of the quantitative results, which includes triangulation with the qualitative findings
are presented in Chapter 10.
159
CHAPTER 9
QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
MOTHERS’ GROUPS AND PLAYGROUPS: ASSOCIATIONS WITH
SOCIAL COHESION, SOCIAL CAPITAL, SOCIAL SUPPORT,
RECIPROCITY AND MENTAL WELLBEING
9.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter contains the analyses of mothers’ group and playgroup participation and the
associations with dependent variables. For the mothers’ group analyses, mothers whose
oldest child was aged 0-5 years were divided into groups based on whether they participated
in a mothers’ group (facilitated and/or parent-led) locally, outside the area or did not
participate within the last 12 months. For the playgroup analyses, parents who had a child
aged 1-4 years, with the oldest child 1-17 years, were divided into groups based on whether
they participated in playgroup (facilitated and/or parent-led) locally, outside the area or did
not participate within the last 12 months. The groups were compared for differences on
neighbourhood cohesion (NCI) social capital (FSCCS), social support generally (MOS-SSS),
parent support from outside the home (PSOHS), reciprocity and mental well-being (WEMWBS).
Linear regression models were used to determine whether demographic characteristics
affected the associations of mothers’ group and playgroup with dependent variable outcomes.
As mothers who participate in playgroups are likely to also participate in mothers’ groups,
adjustment of mothers’ group participation and interaction testing was undertaken with the
playgroup data set. The statistical methods were described in Chapter 7 (section 7.7).
160
9.2 MOTHERS’ GROUPS
Analysis of mothers’ group participation versus non-participation
Survey respondents were asked to indicate if they had participated in a mothers’ group within
the past 12 months. Respondents were not asked to indicate whether the mothers’ group was
facilitated or parent-led. Therefore, reported participation may be with a facilitated or parent-
led mothers’ group, or both, within the preceding 12 months.
Although there were a small number of fathers (n=7) who indicated that they had participated
in a mothers’ group, the analysis focused on mothers only as mothers’ groups are typically
intended for mothers. Table 9.1 lists the frequency of mothers’ group participation for the
total study group of mothers and for two subsets according to the age of their oldest child (0
to 5 years and 6 to 17 years). As participants in mothers’ groups can continue to affiliate with
each other as a group beyond the infant and early years, it was important to look at
participation frequencies for women who had school aged children as well a child aged
between 0 to 5 years. In summary, 54.1% of the total sample of mothers participated in a
mothers’ group either locally or outside their suburb of residence within the last 12 months. Of
the mothers with their oldest child 0 to 5 years of age, 65.9% participated in a mothers’ group
either locally or outside the area, and 25.2% of mothers with their oldest child 6 to 17 years of
age participated in a mothers’ group either locally or outside the area. Mothers’ group ‘outside
the area’ refers to participation outside the participant’s suburb of residence.
The focus of the mothers’ group analyses was on the preschool years where there is limited
involvement in the primary school system and associated social networks, and when there may
be a greater risk of isolation. Therefore, the subset of mothers with the oldest child 0 to 5
years of age (n = 331) was selected for the analyses.
Table 9.1 Frequencies of mothers’ group (MG) participation
Sample of mothers (n=466) Oldest child
0-5 years (n=331) Oldest child
6-17 years (n=135) Total
(n=466)
n (%) n (%) n (%)
MG participation either local and/or outside area
218 (65.9) 34 (25.2) 252 (54.1)
Non participation 113 (34.1) 101 (74.8) 214 (45.9)
161
9.2.1 Mothers’ group demographic characteristics analysis
The demographic characteristics by mothers’ group participation (locally and/or outside the
area) and non-participation are presented in Table 9.2. To check for homogeneity of
demographic variables Chi-square tests were undertaken between the two groups.
Table 9.2 Demographic characteristics by mothers’ group (MG) participation and non-
participation
Mothers with oldest child 0-5 years of age (n=331)
Participated in MG locally and/or outside the area in the last 12 months (n=218)
Did not participate in MG at all in the last 12 months (n=113)
p
N % N %
Age of parents (n=330) 0.512 18-29 63 28.8 35 31.0 30-39 138 63.8 66 58.4 40 and older 16 7.4 12 10.6
Number of children 0.025 1 118 53.9 44 38.9 2 89 40.6 59 52.2 3 or more 11 5.5 10 8.9
Relationship status 0.715 Married or living with partner 208 95.4 106 93.8 Single, separated, divorced or widowed 10 4.6 7 6.2
Place of birth (n=330) 0.111 Australia 151 69.6 68 60.2 Overseas 66 30.4 45 39.8
Education attained (n=330) 0.122 High school year <10 to year 12 33 15.6 27 23.9 Apprenticeship or equivalent qualification
65 29.8 34 30.1
University or higher degree 119 54.6 52 46.0 Employment status (n=329) 0.692
Full-time paid 23 10.6 16 14.2 Part-time paid 70 32.3 31 27.4 Casual, student, voluntary, unemployed 28 12.9 14 12.4 Home duties 96 44.2 52 46.0
Home ownership <0.001 Own outright or with mortgage 174 79.9 65 57.5 Rent or other 44 20.1 48 42.5
Age of residential area (n=329) 0.529 <10 years 135 61.6 64 57.7
10 years 83 38.4 47 42.3
Postcode distance from Perth CBD 0.906 0-15 km 41 18.8 22 19.5 15-30 km 126 57.8 67 59.3 >30 km (in metro area) 51 23.4 24 21.2
Length of residence in current suburb 0.022 <3 years 97 44.7 66 58.4
3 years 121 55.3 47 41.6
p values from Chi-square tests MG (mothers’ group) CBD (Central Business District)
162
There were significant differences between groups for number of children, 2 (2, n = 331) =
7.36, p = 0.025; home ownership, 2 (1, n = 331) = 17.34, p <0.001; and for length of
residence, 2 (1, n = 331) = 5.22, p = 0.022.These results indicate mothers’ group participants
were significantly more likely to have only one child, own their own home and to have lived in
their current suburb three years or longer compared with those who did not participate in
mothers’ groups.
9.2.2 Group analysis for mothers’ group participation with dependent variables
To assess whether there were differences between mothers’ group participants and non-
participants for the dependent variables (NCI, FSCCS, Reciprocity, MOS-SSS, PSOHS, and
WEMWBS) a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was undertaken. The three groups that
were compared comprised of mothers who: 1) participated in mothers’ group locally within
last 12 months (n = 149); 2) participated in mothers’ group outside the area within last 12
months (n = 51); and 3) did not participate in mothers’ group anywhere within the last 12
months (n = 113). Those that participated in mothers’ groups both locally and outside the area
(n=18) were not included in the following analysis as group size too small. The frequencies and
means are shown in Table 9.3.
The results indicated that differences between the groups were statistically significant (Table
9.3) for five of the dependent variables; specifically, for NCI, F (2, 309) = 4.23, p = 0.015; FSCCS,
F (2, 310) = 6.60, p = 0.002; MOS-SSS, F (2, 307) = 5.93, p = 0.003; PSOHS, F (2, 307) = 16.58, p
<0.001; and WEMWBS, F (2, 309) = 3.37, p = 0.036. The Kruskal-Wallis test analysis for the
dependent variables with non-normal distributions (MOS-SSS, PSOHs and Reciprocity)
indicated no change in significance levels for MOS-SSS and PSOHS; however, reciprocity was
found to be significant, p = 0.034 (Table 9.3).
163
Table 9.3 Means and significance for dependent variables (NCI, FSCCS, Reciprocity, MOS-SSS,
PSOHS and WEMWBS) for mothers’ group participation in the last 12 months
Mothers (n=313) N Mean SD p Median† Kruskal-
Wallis p
Neighbourhood cohesion Index (NCI) 0.015
Participated in mothers’ group locally 149 61.19 12.66
Participated in mothers’ group outside the area 51 57.41 15.74
Did not participate in mothers’ group anywhere 112 56.34 14.45
Family Social Capital &Citizen Survey (FSCCS) 0.002
Participated in mothers’ group locally 149 14.03 2.34
Participated in mothers’ group outside the area 51 12.94 3.01
Did not participate in mothers’ group anywhere 113 12.94 2.85
Reciprocity 0.142 0.034
Participated in mothers’ group locally 149 5.68 4.64 5.00
Participated in mothers’ group outside the area 51 4.82 4.32 4.00
Did not participate in mothers’ group anywhere 113 4.54 5.07 2.00
Medical Outcomes Study – Social Support Scale (MOS-SSS) 0.003 0.005
Participated in mothers’ group locally 148 52.18 10.60 52.50
Participated in mothers’ group outside the area 50 51.72 11.06 52.00
Did not participate in mothers’ group anywhere 112 47.48 12.23 49.00
Parent Support Outside Home Scale (PSOHS) <0.001 <0.001
Participated in mothers’ group locally 147 38.50 8.18 40.00
Participated in mothers’ group outside the area 51 36.69 9.05 38.00
Did not participate in mothers’ group anywhere 112 32.08 9.86 31.00
Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS) 0.036
Participated in mothers’ group locally 148 52.90 7.27
Participated in mothers’ group outside the area 51 52.10 9.40
Did not participate in mothers’ group anywhere 113 50.37 7.76
ANOVA, or Welch adjusted p value if homogeneity of variance was violated. SD = Standard Deviation
† Median for logged variables
The nature of the group differences were further examined through post hoc comparisons
using Tukey HSD tests. On five of the outcome variables, participants in mothers groups locally
were more likely to have a higher mean score than those who did not participate. Namely, the
NCI, FSCCS, MOS-SSS, PSOHS and WEMWBS mean scores for participants in local mothers’
group were significantly higher than those who were non-participants in mothers’ group. The
FSCCS mean scores for participants in local mothers’ group were also significantly higher than
164
those who participated in mothers’ group outside the area, and the PSOHS mean scores for
participants in mothers’ group outside the area were significantly higher than those who were
non-participants. All other differences were non-significant. The significant differences are
shown diagrammatically in Figure 9.1.
Figure 9.1 Post hoc comparisons for dependent variables with mothers’ group participation
As shown in Table 9.3, for all dependent variables, those who participated in mothers’ group
locally had consistently higher means than those who participated in mothers’ groups outside
the area, and those who participated in mothers’ group outside the area had generally higher
means than non-participants. The significantly higher mean scores for those who participated
in mothers’ groups locally, compared to non-participants for NCI, FSCCS, MOS-SSS, PSOHS and
WEMWBS, suggests there may be a positive effect from participating in mothers’ group locally.
In addition, the significantly higher mean score for those who participated in mothers’ group
outside the area compared to non-participants for PSOHS, suggests there may be a positive
effect on building support outside the home from participating in mothers’ group either locally
or outside the area. On the other hand, the FSCCS mean scores for mothers’ group
participation outside the area and non- participation were the same and significantly lower
than those who participated in mothers’ group locally, which suggests there may be a stronger
positive effect on social capital from participating in mothers’ group locally.
MG participation locally
WEMWBS p=0.027
MG participation outside area
FSCCS p=0.003FSCCS p=0.032
PSOHS p=<0.001
Non-participation in MG
MOS-SS p=0.003
PSOHS p=0.007
NCI p=0.015
MG locally mean scores higher
MG locally mean scores higher
MG outside area mean scores higher
165
9.2.3 Regression analysis of demographic characteristics of mothers’ group data
To investigate the possible influence of demographic characteristics on the findings from the
mothers’ group data, multivariable linear regression analyses were undertaken for the
dependent variables (NCI, FSCCS, Reciprocity, MOS-SSS, PSOHS, and WEMWBS). Multivariable
linear regression is used to assess how a number of variables and potential confounders are
related to a dependent variable, and can test for interactions (Wakkee, Hollestein & Tamar
2014). The variables Reciprocity, MOS-SSS and PSOHS were logged to comply with the model
assumption of normality (Section 7.7). The parent age category (see Table 9.2) was removed
from the regression model as no effect was detected. No interactions were found between any
of the variables with significant findings. The model for each variable is described separately.
To aid interpretation of results when log transformations were used, percentage changes are
reported.
In the multivariable model, the NCI mean score (Table 9.4) was 5.25 (95% CI 1.76-8.74) points
higher for those who participated in mothers’ group locally compared to those who did not
participate. When differences were examined in relation to key demographics, the NCI mean
scores were 5.31 (95% CI 2.11-8.52) points higher for those with two children compared to one
child; 3.70 (95% CI 0.35-7.05) points higher for those born overseas; and 4.17 (95% CI 0.84-
7.49) points higher for those who had lived three years or longer in their current suburb
compared to those who had lived there less than three years.
For the FSCCS, only two significant differences were observed. Namely, the FSCCS mean
scores (Table 9.4), were 1.15 (95% CI 0.46-1.83) points higher for those who participated in
mothers’ group locally compared to those who did not participate; and 0.64 (95% CI -0.01-
1.27) points higher for those with two children compared to one child.
The logged Reciprocity mean score (Table 9.4) was 0.36 (95% CI 0.13-0.59) points, equivalent
to 43% (95% CI 14-80%), higher for those who participated in mothers’ group locally compared
to those who did not participate. When differences were examined in relation to key
demographics, the mean scores were 0.38 (95% CI 0.17-0.60) points, equivalent to 46% (95%
CI 19-82%), higher for those with two children compared to one child; and 0.40 (95% CI 0.18-
0.63) points, equivalent to 49% (95% CI 20-88%), higher for those who had lived three years
and longer in their current suburb compared to those who had lived there less than three
years.
The logged MOS-SSS mean score (Table 9.5), was 0.12 (95% CI 0.05-0.18) points, equivalent to
13% (95% CI 5-20%), higher for those who participated in mothers’ group locally compared to
166
those who did not participate. Only one demographic significant difference was observed.
Specifically, the mean score was 0.07 (95% CI 0.01-0.13) points, equivalent to 7% (95% CI 1-
14%), higher for those with two children compared to one child.
The logged PSOHS mean scores (Table 9.5), were 0.19 (95% CI 0.11-0.27) points, equivalent to
21% (95% CI 12-31%), higher for those who participated in mothers’ group locally, and 0.12
(95% CI 0.03-0.22) points, equivalent to 13% (95% CI 3-25%), higher for those who participated
in mothers’ group outside the area compared to those who did not participate. Only one
demographic significant difference was observed. Namely, the mean score was 0.13 (95% CI
0.05-0.22) points, equivalent to 14% (95% CI 5-25%), higher for those who owned their home
compared to those who did not.
The WEMWBS mean score (Table 9.5), was 3.26 (95% CI 1.34-5.18) points higher for those who
participated in local mothers’ group compared to those who did not participate. Several
demographic significant differences were observed. The WEMWBS mean scores were 2.34
(95% CI 0.58-4.11) points higher for those with two children compared to one child; 4.12 (95%
CI 0.57-7.69) points higher for those with three or more children compared to one child; 3.31
(95% CI 1.46-5.15) points higher for those born overseas; 2.18 (95% CI 0.28-4.09) points higher
for those with a university education compared with those with an apprentice or equivalent
qualification; 1.92 (95% CI 0.01-3.84) points higher for those in part-time employment
compared to home duties; 2.39 (95% CI 0.58-4.20) points higher for those who lived in an area
developed within the last 10 years compared to those who lived in older areas; and 1.92 (95%
CI 0.01-3.84) points higher for those in part-time employment compared to those with home
duties.
9.2.4 Overall support external to the home and mothers’ group participation
To assess for differences between mothers’ group participation (locally, outside the area and
non-participation) and overall support external to the home using the ALCS item (Section
8.5.1), Chi-square tests were undertaken. There were significant differences between the
three groups for overall support external to the home, 2 (2, n = 313) = 13.04, p = 0.001. The
results indicated that: 77.2% of those who participated in mothers’ group locally, 72.5% of
those who participated in mothers’ group outside the area, and 56.6% of those who did not
participate in mothers’ group reported that they either got enough help or did not need any
help.
167
Table 9.4 Multivariable regression results for social capital measures (NCI and FSCCS) and
reciprocity among mothers with oldest child 0 to 5 years
Mothers (n = 313) Neighbourhood Cohesion
Index (NCI)
Family Social Capital and
Citizen Survey (FSCCS) Reciprocity
β 95% CI p β 95% CI p β 95% CI p
Mothers’ group (MG) 0.012 0.002 0.010
Participated locally 5.251 (1.76,8.74) 0.003 1.146 (0.46,1.83) 0.001 0.361 (0.13,0.59) 0.002
Participated outside area 1.881 (-2.59,6.35) 0.410 0.036 (-0.84,0.92) 0.936 0.134 (-0.17,0.43) 0.382
Did not participate 0a 0
a 0
a
Number of children 0.005 0.135 0.002
3 or more 4.186 (-2.26,10.63) 0.203 0.367 (-0.90,1.64) 0.571 0.362 (-0.07,0.80) 0.100
2 5.315 (2.11,8.52) 0.001 0.643 (-0.01,1.27) 0.045 0.383 (0.17,0.60) <0.001
1 0a 0
a 0
a
Relationship status
Married or living with
partner 2.174 (-4.94,9.23) 0.549 -0.082 (-1.48,1.32) 0.908 -0.057 (-0.53,0.42) 0.815
Single, separated,
divorced or widowed 0
a 0
a 0
a
Place of birth
Australia -3.702 (-7.05,-0.35) 0.030 -0.237 (-0.89,0.42) 0.481 -0.071 (-0.30,0.15) 0.537
Overseas 0a 0
a 0
a
Education attained 0.397 0.967 0.863
High school year <10-12 1.943 (-2.18,6.07) 0.356 0.091 (-0.72,0.90) 0.826 -0.037 (-0.31,0.24) 0.793
Apprenticeship or
equivalent qualification 2.236 (-1.24,5.71) 0.207 0.070 (-0.61,0.75) 0.840 0.042 (-0.19,0.27) 0.725
University or higher deg. 0a 0
a 0
a
Employment 0.066 0.140 0.176
Full-time employment -4.504 (-9.52,0.52) 0.079 -0.865 (-1.85,0.12) 0.086 -0.243 (-058,0.09) 0.157
Part-time employment -3.065 (-6.55,-0.42) 0.085 -0.323 (-1.01,0.36) 0.355 -0.136 (-0.37,0.10) 0.254
Casual/Student/voluntee
r/unemployed 2.011 (-2.73,6.76) 0.406 0.475 (-0.46,1.41) 0.319 0.160 (-0.16,0.48) 0.324
Home duties 0a
0a
0a
Home ownership
Owns home
(mortgage/outright) 2.600 (-1.29,6.49) 0.190 0.316 (-0.45,1.08) 0.417 -0.098 (-0.36,0.16) 0.462
Rents or other 0a
0a
0a
Age of residential area
<10 years -1.512 (-4.81,1.79) 0.370 -0.500 (-1.15,0.15) 0.130 -0.039 (-0.26,0.18) 0.730
10 years 0a 0
a 0
a
Distance from CBD 0.805 0.873 0.344
0-15 km -0.464 (-5.40,4.47) 0.854 -0.153 (-1.12,0.82) 0.757 -0.048 (-0.38,0.28) 0.778
15-30 km -1.201 (-4.90,2.50) 0.525 0.073 (-0.66,0.80) 0.845 -0.173 (-0.42,0.08) 0.171
>30 km(in metro area) 0a 0
a 0
a
Length of residence
<3 years -4.166 (-7.49,-0.84 0.014 -0.417 (-1.07,0.24) 0.212 -0.403 (-0.63,-0.18) <0.001
3 years 0a 0
a 0
a
a β =0 indicates reference category, Reciprocity logged for non-normal distribution
168
Table 9.5 Multivariable regression results for social support measures (MOS-SSS and PSOHS)
and mental well-being (WEMWBS) among mothers with oldest child 0 to 5 years
Mothers (n = 313)
Medical Outcomes Study – Social Support Survey
(MOS-SSS)
Parent Support Outside Home Scale (PSOHS)
Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale
(WEMWBS) β 95% CI p β 95% CI p β 95% CI p
Mothers’ group (MG) 0.002 <0.001 0.003
Participated locally 0.117 (0.05,0.18) 0.001 0.191 (0.11,0.27) <0.001 3.261 (1.34,5.18) 0.001
Participated outside area 0.084 (0.00,0.17) 0.058 0.124 (0.03,0.22) 0.014 0.945 (-1.51,3.40) 0.451
Did not participate 0a 0
a 0
a
Number of children 0.079 0.400 0.009
3 or more -0.002 (-0.13,0.12) 0.975 -0.028 (-0.17,0.15) 0.704 4.120 (0.57,7.67) 0.023
2 0.068 (0.01,0.13) 0.031 0.042 (-0.03,0.11) 0.250 2.343 (0.58,4.11) 0.009
1 0a 0
a 0
a
Relationship status
Married or living with
partner 0.136 (0.00,0.27) 0.051 0.137 (-0.03,0.30) 0.098 3.685 (-0.23,7.60) 0.065
Single, separated, divorced
or widowed 0
a 0
a 0
a
Place of birth
Australia 0.009 (-0.06,0.07) 0.783 0.012 (-0.06,0.09) 0.745 -3.306 (-5.15,-1.46) <0.001
Overseas 0a 0
a 0
a
Education attained 0.060 0.086 0.073
High school year <10-12 0.077 (-0.01,0.16) 0.057 0.086 (-0.01,0.18) 0.070 -0.438 (-2.72,1.84) 0.707
Apprenticeship or
equivalent -0.023 (-0.09,0.04) 0.507 -0.022 (-0.10,0.06) 0.574 -2.184 (-4.09,-0.28) 0.025
University or higher deg. 0a 0
a 0
a
Employment 0.548 0.561 0.158
Full-time employment 0.038 (-0.06,0.13) 0.442 0.014 (-0.10,0.13) 0.798 2.114 (-0.65,4.87) 0.133
Part-time employment 0.048 (-0.02,0.11) 0.162 0.029 (-0.05,0.11) 0.457 1.923 (0.01,3.84) 0.049
Casual/Student/volunteer/
unemployed 0.027 (-0.07,0.12) 0.567 0.075 (-0.31,0.18) 0.166 1.701 (-0.91,4.31) 0.202
Home duties 0a
0a
0a
Home ownership
Owns home
(mortgage/outright) 0.043 (-0.03,0.12) 0.270 0.134 (0.05,0.22) 0.002 1.187 (-0.95,3.32) 0.277
Rents or other 0a
0a
0a
Age of residential area
<10 years 0.027 (-0.04,0.09) 0.403 -0.035 (-0.11,0.04) 0.351 2.389 (0.58,4.20) 0.010
10 years 0a 0
a 0
a
Distance from CBD 0.605 0.905 0.648
0-15 km 0.001 (-0.09,0.10) 0.983 -0.013 (-0.12,0.10) 0.811 -0.822 (-3.54,1.89) 0.553
15-30 km -0.031 (-0.10,0.41) 0.400 -0.019 (-0.10,0.06) 0.654 -0.959 (-2.97,1.08) 0.356
>30 km(in metro area) 0a 0
a 0
a
Length of residence
<3 years 0.014 (-0.05,0.08) 0.659 0.020 (-0.05,0.10) 0.590 -0.001 (-1.83,1.83) 0.999
3 years 0a 0
a 0
a
a β =0 indicates reference category, MOS-SSS and PSOHS logged for non-normal distributions
169
9.3 PLAYGROUPS
Analysis of playgroup participation versus non-participation
Survey respondents were asked to indicate if they had participated in a playgroup within the
past 12 months. Respondents were not asked to indicate whether the playgroup was
facilitated or parent-led. Therefore, reported participation may be with a facilitated or parent-
led playgroup, or both, within the preceding 12 months.
The sample of participants (n=421) with at least one child of playgroup age (one to four years
of age) was selected. Of these (Table 9.6), 58.4% of those with the oldest child 1 to 5 years (n =
293) and 54.7% of those with the oldest child 6 to 17 years (n = 128) participated in a
playgroup locally and/or outside the area. As more than half the parents with the oldest child
aged 6 to 17 years participated in playgroup they have been included in the playgroup analysis.
Table 9.6 Frequencies of playgroup (PG) participation
Sample of parents with at least one child of playgroup (1-4 years) age (n=421)
Oldest child 1-5 years (n=293)
Oldest child 6-17 years (n=128)
Total (n=421)
n (%) n (%) n (%)
PG participation local and/or outside area 171 (58.4) 70 (54.7) 241 (57.2)
Non participation 122 (41.6) 58 (45.3) 180 (42.8)
9.3.1 Playgroup demographic characteristic analysis
The demographic characteristics by playgroup participation (locally and/or outside the area)
and non-participation are presented in Table 9.7. As mothers who participate in playgroup
may also participate in a mothers’ group it was important to include mothers’ group
participation in the playgroup analyses. To check for homogeneity of demographic variables
Chi-square tests were undertaken between the two groups.
There were significant differences between groups for employment status, 2 (3, n = 418) =
9.35, p = 0.025; home ownership 2 (1, n = 420) = 4.06, p = 0.044; and mothers’ group
participation, 2 (1, n = 421) = 38.36, p <0.001. These results indicate that playgroup
participants (Table 9.7) were significantly more likely to be home owners, to be in less paid
employment, and to also participate in a mothers’ group (locally or outside the area).
170
Table 9.7 Demographic distribution of playgroup (PG) participation and non-participation
Parents with at least one child of playgroup (1-4 years) age (n=421)
Participated in PG locally and/or outside the area in the last 12 months (n=241)
Did not participate in PG at all in the last 12 months (n = 180)
p
N % N %
Gender (n=420) 0.268
Female 233 97.1 170 94.4
Male 7 2.9 10 5.6
Age of parents (n=420) 0.160
18-29 51 21.3 47 26.1
30-39 155 64.5 102 56.7
40 and older 34 14.2 31 17.2
No. children in family 0.486
1 71 29.5 48 26.7
2 109 45.2 92 51.1
3 or more 61 25.3 40 22.3
Age of oldest child 0.553
1-5 years 171 71.0 122 67.8
6-17 years 70 29.0 58 32.2
Relationship status (n=420) 0.347
Married or living with partner 231 95.9 167 93.3
Single, separated, divorced or widowed 10 4.1 12 6.7
Place of birth (n=418) >0.99
Australia 160 66.7 119 66.9
Overseas 80 33.3 59 33.1
Education attained (n=419) 0.248
High school year <10 to year 12 49 20.4 39 21.8
Apprenticeship or equivalent qualification 65 27.1 60 33.5
University or higher degree 126 52.5 80 44.7
Employment status (n=418) 0.025
Full-time paid 20 8.4 31 17.3
Part-time paid 73 30.5 59 33
Casual, student, voluntary/unemployed 32 13.4 21 11.7
Home duties 114 47.7 68 38
Home ownership (n=420) 0.044
Own outright or with mortgage 189 78.4 124 69.3
Rent or other 52 21.6 55 30.7
Age of residential area (n=420 ) 0.861
<10 years 148 61.7 108 60.3
10 years 92 38.3 71 39.7
Postcode distance from Perth CBD 0.775
9-15 km 46 19.1 30 16.7
15-30 km 137 56.8 103 57.2
>30 km(in metro area) 58 24.1 47 26.1
Length of residence in current suburb 0.824
<3 years 110 45.6 85 47.2
3 years 131 54.4 95 52.8
Mothers’ group (MG) last 12 months
Participated in MG locally or outside area 151 62.7 57 31.7 <0.001
Did not participate in MG anywhere 90 37.3 123 68.3
p values from Chi-square tests PG (Playgroup) CBD (Central Business District)
171
9.3.2 Group analysis for playgroup participation with dependent variables
To assess whether there were differences between playgroup participation and non-
participation for the dependent variables (NCI, FSCCS, MOS-SSS, PSOHS, Reciprocity, and
WEMWBS) ANOVA was undertaken. The three groups that were compared comprised of
parents who: 1) participated in playgroup locally within last 12 months (n = 164); 2)
participated in playgroup outside the area within last 12 months (n = 61); and 3) did not
participate in playgroup within the last 12 months (n = 180). Those that participated in a
playgroup both locally and outside the area (n=16) were not included in the following analysis
as group size was too small. The numbers and means are shown in Table 9.8.
Table 9.8 Means and significance for dependent variables (NCI, FSCCS, Reciprocity, MOS-SSS,
PSOHS, and WEMWBS) for playgroup participation in the last 12 months
Parents (n=405) N Mean SD p Median†
Kruskal Wallace p
Neighbourhood Cohesion Index (NCI) <0.001
Participated in PG locally 163 63.90 13.53
Participated in PG outside the area 61 55.44 12.82
Did not participate in PG anywhere 180 57.27 14.69
Family Social Capital & Citizen Survey (FSCCS) <0.001
Participated in PG locally 164 14.41 2.37
Participated in PG outside the area 61 12.41 2.12
Did not participate in PG anywhere 180 13.19 2.90
Reciprocity 0.002 0.002
Participated in PG locally 164 6.87 5.16 7.00
Participated in PG outside the area 61 4.52 4.46 4.00
Did not participate in PG anywhere 180 5.44 4.92 4.00
Medical Outcomes Study – Social Support Scale (MOS-SSS) 0.467 0.735
Participated in PG locally 163 49.83 10.38 50.00
Participated in PG outside the area 61 49.25 13.60 50.00
Did not participate in PG anywhere 178 48.27 12.88 50.00
Parent Support Outside Home Scale (PSOHS) 0.254 0.336
Participated in PG locally 162 35.58 8.77 37.00
Participated in PG outside the area 60 34.10 10.59 36.00
Did not participate in PG anywhere 178 33.97 9.97 36.00
Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS) 0.132
Participated in PG locally 164 52.50 7.99
Participated in PG outside the area 61 51.44 9.36
Did not participate in PG anywhere 180 50.72 7.96 ANOVA, or Welch adjusted p value if homogeneity of variance was violated. SD = Standard Deviation
† Median for logged variables
172
The results indicated that there were statistically significant differences between the three
types of playgroup participation for three of the outcome variables (Table 9.8); specifically, for
NCI, F (2, 401) = 12.95, p<0.001; FSCCS, F (2,402) = 16.66, p<0.001; and Reciprocity, F (2,402) =
6.27, p = 0.002. There was no statistical significance for MOS-SSS, PSOHS or WEMWBS. The
Kruskal-Wallis test analyses for the dependent variables with non-normal distributions (MOS-
SSS, PSOHS, and Reciprocity) were consistent with the ANOVA analysis; i.e., there were no
changes in significance.
The nature of the group differences were further examined through post hoc comparisons
using Tukey HSD tests, and are shown diagrammatically in Figure 9.2. The comparisons
indicated that the NCI, FSCCS and Reciprocity mean scores for participants in local mothers’
group were significantly higher than both the participants in playgroup outside the area and
those who were non-participants within the last 12 months. There were no significant score
differences between participants of playgroup outside the area and playgroup non-
participants for any of the dependent variables. However, as shown in Table 9.8, those who
participated in playgroup outside the area had a lower mean score for these three measures
(NCI, FSCCS and Reciprocity) than those who had not participated in playgroups at all within
the last 12 months.
Figure 9.2 Post hoc comparisons for dependent variables with playgroup participation
The significantly higher scores for those who participated in playgroups locally compared to
those who participated outside the area and those who did not participate for NCI, FSCCS and
Reciprocity, suggest there may be positive effects from participating in playgroups locally for
PG participation locally
Reciprocity p=0.021
PG participation outside area
NCI p<0.001
FSCCS p<0.001 FSCCS p=<0.001
Non-participation in PG
NCI p<0.001
Reciprocity p=0.005
PG locally mean scores higher
PG locally mean scores higher
173
these social capital measures.
9.3.3 Regression analysis of demographic characteristics of playgroup data
To investigate the possible impact of demographic characteristics and mothers’ group
participation on the findings from the playgroup data, multivariable linear regression analyses
were undertaken for the dependent variables (NCI, FSCCS, Reciprocity, MOS-SSS, PSOHS, and
WEMWBS). The variables Reciprocity, MOS-SSS and PSOHS were logged to comply with the
model assumption of normality (Section 7.7). The model for each variable is described
separately. To aid interpretation of results when log transformations were used, percentage
changes are reported. The parent age and child age categories (see Table 9.7) were removed
from the regression model as no effects were detected. No interactions were found between
any of the variables with significant findings. Therefore, the effects of playgroup and mothers’
group participation were independent of each other.
In the multivariable model, the NCI mean score (Table 9.9) was 5.46 (95%CI 2.44-8.47) points
higher for those who participated in playgroup locally compared to those who did not
participate in playgroup. When point differences were examined in relation to key
demographics, the NCI mean scores were 3.05 (95%CI 0.05-6.03) points higher for those who
participated in mothers’ group (locally or outside area) compared to those who did not
participate in mothers’ group; 6.42 (95%CI 3.21-9.63) points higher for those with two children
compared to one child; and 5.49 (95%CI 1.50-9.48) points higher for those with three or more
children compared to those parents with one child.
The FSCCS means scores (Table 9.9) were 0.99 (95%CI 0.43-1.56) points higher for those who
participated in playgroup locally compared to those who did not participate in playgroup; and
0.98 (95% CI 0.20-1.76) points higher for those who did not participate in playgroup compared
to those who participated in playgroup outside the area. To further explore the difference
between playgroup participation locally with outside the area participation, the reference
category in the regression model was changed to ‘playgroup participation outside the area’.
The mean score was 1.98 (95% CI 1.21-2.75) points higher for those who participated in
playgroup locally compared to those who participated in playgroup outside the area (p<0.001),
indicating a strong significant difference. Three other significant differences were observed for
FSCCS scores. The mean scores were 0.65 (95% CI 0.08-1.21) points higher for those who
participated in mothers’ group (locally or outside area) compared to those who did not
participate in mothers’ group; 0.75 (95% CI 0.15-1.36) points higher for those with two
children compared to one child; and 1.04 (95% CI 0.29-1.79) points higher for those with three
or more children compared to those parents with one child.
174
The logged Reciprocity value for playgroup participation (Table 9.9) indicated a significant
difference between groups (p=0.008) and a smaller significant difference (p=0.03) where those
who participated in playgroup outside the area scored lower than those who did not
participate, while there was no significant difference between those who participated locally
and non-participants. However, when the reference category was changed to ‘playgroup
participation outside the area’ the mean scores were 0.43 (95% CI 0.16-0.71) points,
equivalent to 54% (95% CI 17-103%), higher for those who participated in playgroup locally
compared to those who participated in playgroup outside the area (p=0.002). Four other
significant differences were observed for Reciprocity scores. The mean score was 0.33 (95% CI
0.13-0.53) points, equivalent to 39% (95% CI 14-70%), higher for those who participated in
mothers’ group (locally or outside area) compared to those who did not participate. The mean
scores were 0.35 (95% CI 0.14-0.57) points, equivalent to 42% (95% CI 15-77%), higher for
those with two children compared to those with only one child, and 0.48 (95%CI 0.21-0.74)
points, equivalent to 62% (95% CI 23-109%), higher for those with three or more children
compared to those parents with one child. The mean score was 0.22 (95% CI 0.02-0.41) points,
equivalent to 25% (95% CI 2-51%), higher for those who had lived three years and longer in
their current suburb compared to those that had lived there less than three years.
There was no association for playgroup participation with MOS-SSS. However, three other
significant differences were observed (Table 9.10). The logged MOS-SSS mean score was 0.08
(95% CI 0.02-0.14) points, equivalent to 8% (95% CI 2-14%), higher for those who participated
in mothers’ group (locally or outside the area) compared to those who did not participate. The
mean scores were 0.30 (95% CI 0.15-0.46), equivalent to 35% (95% CI 16-58%), higher for
mothers than fathers; and 0.14 (95% CI 0.01-0.26), equivalent to 15% (95% CI 1-30%), higher
for those married or living with a partner compared to those who were single, separated,
divorced or widowed.
There was no association for playgroup participation with PSOHS. For the logged PSOHS mean
scores only two significant differences were observed (Table 9.10). Namely, the mean score
was 0.12 (95% CI 0.05-0.19) points, equivalent to 13% (95% CI 5-21%), higher for those who
participated in mothers’ group (locally or outside the area) compared to those who did not
participate. The mean score was 0.16 (95% CI 0.08-0.25), equivalent to 17% (95% CI 10-28%),
higher for those who owned their home (mortgage or outright) compared to those that did not
own their home.
175
Table 9.9 Multivariable regression results for social capital measures (NCI and FSCCS) and
Reciprocity among parents with at least one child aged 1-4 years
Parents (n = 405) Neighbourhood
Cohesion Index (NCI)
Family Social capital &
Citizen Survey (FSCCS) Reciprocity
β 95% CI p β 95% CI p β 95% CI p
Playgroup <0.001 <0.001 0.008
Participated locally 5.457 (2.44,8.47) 0.001 0.994 (0.43,1.56) 0.001 0.128 (-0.07,0.33) 0.214
Participated outside area -2.537 (-6.68,1.61) 0.230 -0.981 (-1.76,-0.20) 0.014 -0.306 (-0.58,0.03) 0.031
Did not participate 0a 0a 0a
Mothers’ group (MG)
Participated locally/outside
area 3.045 (0.05,6.04) 0.046 0.647 (0.08,1.21) 0.024 0.329 (0.13,0.53) 0.001
Did not participate 0a 0a 0a
Fathers -4.912 (-12.56,2.74) 0.208 0.393 (-1.05,1.83) 0.593 -0.273 (-0.79,0.24) 0.295
Mothers 0a 0a 0a
Number of children <0.001 0.013 0.001
3 or more 5.490 (1.50,9.48) 0.007 1.037 (-0.29,1.79) 0.007 0.477 (-0.21,0.74) <0.001
2 6.419 (3.20,9.63) <0.001 0.753 (-0.15,1.36) 0.015 0.353 (0.14,0.57) 0.001
1 0a 0a 0a
Relationship status
Married or living with partner -4.747 (-10.86,1.37) 0.128 -0.849 (-2.00,0.30) 0.149 -0.213 (-0.62,0.20) 0.307
Single, separated, divorced or
widowed 0a 0a
0a
Place of birth
Australia -2.509 (-5.48,0.46) 0.098 0.092 (-0.47,0.65) 0.746 -0.191 (-0.39,0.01) 0.059
Overseas 0a 0a 0a
Education attained 0.696 0.660 0.925
High school year <10 - 12 1.380 (-2.28,5.04) 0.460 -0.221 (-0.91,0.47) 0.529 -0.049 (-0.29,0.20) 0.697
TAFE, apprenticeship or
equivalent 1.096 (-2.06,4.25) 0.496 -0.259 (-0.85,0.33) 0.393
-0.023 (-0.23,0.18) 0.832
University or higher degree 0a 0a 0a
Employment 0.964 0.309 0.573
Full-time employment 0.361 (-4.38,5.10) 0.881 -0.326 (-1.22,0.57) 0.474 -0.067 (-0.38,0.25) 0.678
Part-time employment -0.009 (-3.23,3.21) 0.996 0.221 (-0.38,0.83) 0.475 -0.046 (-0.26,0.17) 0.676
Casual/student/volunteer/une
mployed 1.099 (-3.26,5.46) 0.621 0.620 (-0.20,1.44) 0.138
0.161 (-0.13,0.45) 0.279
Home duties 0a 0a 0a
Home ownership
Owns (mortgage/outright) 3.460 (-0.17,7.09) 0.062 -0.244 (-0.93,0.44) 0.484 0.051 (-0.19,0.29) 0.681
Rents or other 0a 0a 0a
Age of residential area
<10 years 1.065 (-1.91,4.04) 0.482 0.227 (-0.33,0.79) 0.426 0.067 (-0.13,0.27) 0.510
10 years 0a 0a 0a
Distance from CBD 0.466 0.771 0.681
0-15km 1.530 (-2.91,5.98) 0.499 0.295 (-0.54,1.13) 0.490 0.050 (-0.25,0.35) 0.739
15-30km -0.945 (-4.17,2.28) 0.565 0.161 (-0.45,0.79) 0.603 -0.060 (-0.28,0.16) 0.587
>30km(in metro area) 0a 0a 0a
Length of residence
<3 years -2.112 (-5.04,0.82) 0.158 -0.227 (-0.78,0.33) 0.421 -0.217 (-0.41,-0.21) 0.030
3 years 0a 0a 0a
a β =0 indicates reference category, Reciprocity logged for non-normal distribution, CBD = Central Business District
176
Table 9.10 Multivariable regression results for social support measures (MOS-SSS and PSOHS)
and mental well-being (WEMWBS) among parents with at least one child aged 1-4 years
Parents (n = 405 ) Medical Outcomes
Study – Social Support Survey (MOS-SSS)
Parent Support Outside Home Scale (PSOHS)
Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS)
β 95% CI p β 95% CI p β 95% CI p
Playgroup 0.485 0.697 0.106
Participated locally 0.022 (-0.04,0.08) 0.474 0.012 (-0.06,0.08) 0.740 1.495 (-0.23,3.22) 0.090
Participated outside area -0.026 (-0.11,0.06) 0.538 -0.064 (-0.16,0.03) 0.184 -0.635 (-3.01,1.74) 0.601
Did not participate 0a 0a 0a
Mothers’ group (MG)
Participated locally/outside
area 0.083 (0.02,0.14) 0.007 0.120 (0.05,0.19) 0.001 1.925 (-0.21,3.64) 0.028
Did not participate 0a 0a 0a
Fathers -0.302 (-0.46,-0.15) <0.001 -0.105 (-0.28,0.07) 0.238 -5.937 (-10.3,-1.55) 0.008
Mothers 0a 0a 0a
Number of children 0.352 0.442 0.079
3 or more 0.021 (-0.06,0.10) 0.128 -0.004 (-0.10,0.09) 0.934 1.760 (-0.52,4.04) 0.131
2 0.046 (-0.02,0.11) 0.158 0.045 (-0.03,0.12) 0.233 2.089 (0.25,3.93) 0.026
1 0a 0a 0a
Relationship status
Married or living with partner 0.137 (0.01,0.26) 0.028 0.120 (-0.02,0.26) 0.099 1.527 (-1.98,5.03) 0.393
Single, separated, divorced or
widowed 0a 0a 0a
Place of birth
Australia 0.012 (-0.05,0.07) 0.688 0.002 (-0.07,0.07) 0.960 -2.645 (-4.35,-0.94) 0.002
Overseas 0a 0a 0a
Education attained 0.110 0.050 0.065
High school year <10 - 12 0.055 (-0.02,0.13) 0.140 0.059 (-0.03,0.14) 0.171 -0.623 (-2.72,1.48) 0.561
Apprenticeship or equivalent -0.026 (-0.09,0.04) 0.421 -0.036 (-0.11,0.04) 0.331 -2.133 (-3.94,-0.33) 0.021
University or higher degree 0a 0a 0a
Employment 0.159 0.413 0.020
Full-time employment 0.074 (-0.02,0.17) 0.125 0.044 (-0.06,0.15) 0.420 2.844 (0.13,5.56) 0.040
Part-time employment 0.062 (0.00,0.13) 0.057 0.052 (-0.02,0.13) 0.171 2.623 (0.78,4.47) 0.005
Casual/student/volunteer or
unemployed -0.001 (-0.09,0.09) 0.988 0.059 (-0.04,0.16) 0.245 0.453 (-2.04,2.95) 0.722
Home duties 0a 0a 0a
Home ownership
Owns (mortgage/outright) 0.059 (0.01,0.13) 0.113 0.162 (0.08,0.25) <0.001 0.341 (-1.74,2.42) 0.748
Rents or other 0a 0a 0a
Age of residential area
<10 years 0.056 (-0.01,0.12) 0.065 -0.017 (-0.09,0.05) 0.613 1.438 (-0.26,3.14) 0.097
10 years 0a 0a 0a
Distance from CBD 0.689 0.604 0.951
0-15km 0.033 (-0.06,0.12) 0.461 0.034 (-0.07,0.14) 0.507 -0.191 (-2.73,2.35) 0.883
15-30km -0.001 (-0.06,0.07) 0.977 -0.005 (-0.07,0.08) 0.899 0.162 (-1.69,2.01) 0.864
>30km(in metro area) 0a 0a 0a
Length of residence
<3 years 0.024 (-0.04,0.08) 0.427 0.023 (-0.04,0.09) 0.502 0.292 (-1.39,1.97) 0.734
3 years 0a 0a 0a
a β =0 indicates reference category, MOS-SSS and PSOHS logged for non-normal distributions
177
There was no association for playgroup participation with WEMWBS. However, several other
significant differences were observed (Table 9.10). The WEMWBS mean scores were 1.93 (95%
CI -0.21-3.64) points higher for those who participated in mothers’ group (locally or outside
area) compared to those who did not participate; 5.94 (95% CI 1.55-10.3) points higher for
mothers than fathers; 2.09 (95% CI 0.25-3.93) points higher for those with two children
compared to those parents with one child; 2.64 (95% CI 0.94-4.35) points higher for those born
overseas; 2.13 (95% CI 0.33-3.94) points higher for those with degrees or higher education
compared to those with apprenticeship or equivalent qualification; 2.62 (95% CI 0.78-4.47)
points higher for those in part-time employment and 2.84 (95% CI 0.13-5.56) points higher for
those in full-time employment compared to those who reported their status as home duties.
To investigate whether the inclusion of fathers (n=17) had influenced the WEMWBS findings
for employment, a regression analysis without the fathers was undertaken. The WEMWBS
mean scores remained significant and were 2.55 (95% CI 0.71-4.38, p=0.007) points higher for
those in part-time employment and 3.14 (95% CI 0.38-5.96, p=0.029) points higher for those in
full-time employment compared to those who reported their status as home duties.
9.3.4 Overall support external to the home and playgroup participation
To assess for differences between playgroup participation (locally, outside the area and non-
participation) and overall support external to the home using the ALCS item (Section8.5.1) Chi-
square tests were undertaken. There were significant differences between the three groups
for overall support external to the home, 2 (2, n = 404) = 9.43, p = 0.009. The results indicated
that: 74.6% of those who participated in playgroup locally, 66.2% of those who participated in
playgroup outside the area, and 58.3% of those who did not participate in playgroup reported
that they either got enough help or did not need any help.
9.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY
The quantitative results of the mothers’ group and playgroup analyses for the dependent
variables (NCI, FSCCS, Reciprocity, MOS-SSS, PSOHS and WEMWBS) were presented in this
chapter.
Overall, the mothers’ group analysis (mothers with oldest child 0-5 years) indicated a
significant positive association between mothers’ group participation locally and each of the
dependent variables (NCI, FSCCS, Reciprocity, MOS-SSS, PSOHS and WEMWBS), and a positive
association between mothers’ group participation outside the area and PSOHS. Other factors
that were positively associated with the dependent variables included: having two children
178
compared to one child (NCI, FSCCS, Reciprocity, MOS-SSS) and having two or more children
compared to one child (WEMWBS); mother born overseas (NCI, WEMWBS); university
education compared to apprenticeship qualification or equivalent (WEMWBS); part-time
employment compared to home duties (WEMWBS); home-ownership (PSOHS); age of
residential area <10 years (WEMWBS); and length of residence 3 years (NCI and Reciprocity).
The playgroup analyses (parents with child/ren aged 1-4 and oldest 1-17 years) indicated a
significant positive association between playgroup participation locally and three of the
dependent variables (NCI, FSCCS and Reciprocity). On the other hand, playgroup participation
outside the area was significantly lower than both playgroup participation locally and non-
participation for two variables (FSCCS and Reciprocity). Other factors that were positively
associated with the dependent variables included: mothers’ group participation (NCI, FSCCS,
MOS-SSS, PSOHS, Reciprocity and WEMWBS); being a mother compared to a father (MOS-SSS,
WEMWBS); married or living with a partner (MOS-SSS); parent born overseas (WEMWBS);
higher education (WEMWBS); part and full-time employment (WEMWBS); two children
compared to one child (WEMWBS); two or more children compared to one child (NCI, FSCCS,
Reciprocity); home ownership (PSOHS); and length of residence 3 years (Reciprocity). There
were no interactions between playgroup and mothers’ group participation, which indicates the
associations are independent.
These quantitative results are discussed in Chapter 10 and triangulated with the qualitative
results.
179
CHAPTER 10
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
10.1 INTRODUCTION
This study explored how families with children aged 0 to 5 years built social capital, and felt
connected and supported within their local communities. In particular, the study focused on
families in newer residential areas and the extent to which community groups such as
mothers’ groups and playgroups supported the process of building community connectedness.
A sequential mixed methods design was employed. The study commenced with the qualitative
phase consisting of two sequential parts. Firstly, in-depth interviews and subsequent analysis,
which informed the second part, focus groups with mothers’ groups and playgroups. The
qualitative findings collectively then informed the quantitative phase, which involved the
development of a survey instrument. The quantitative data were collected principally through
an online survey and analysed using SPSS.
A discussion and integration of the qualitative and quantitative findings is presented in this
final chapter. This discussion begins with the relationships between themes identified and
explored during the qualitative phase and then integrated with the findings between the
dependent variables in the quantitative phase. The integration continues using the conceptual
social capital framework proposed in the literature review (Chapter 2), that was explored
qualitatively and modified (Chapter 5 manuscript 1). The modified conceptual framework is
used as a guide to discuss the findings of the dependent variables (NCI, FSCCS, Participation,
Reciprocity, MOS-SSS, PSOHS) in detail. Mental well-being (WEMWBS) as a dependent
variable, demographics, relocation and residential factors as independent variables are also
discussed. Limitations and strengths are presented and the thesis concludes with contribution
to knowledge and implications for policy, practice and future research.
180
10.2 OVERALL RELATIONSHIPS AND PATHWAYS
This section describes and integrates the overall relationships and proposed pathways
between the themes identified and explored during the qualitative phase with the findings
from the quantitative phase that identified associations between the dependent variables
(NCI, FSCCS, MOS-SSS, PSOHS, Local participation, Reciprocity and WEMWBS). Figure 10.1
illustrates conceptually these relationships and pathways (qualitative findings - blue,
quantitative findings - yellow, and local participation – green - as it was found to be
fundamental in both qualitative and quantitative analyses).
Figure 10.1 Relationships between qualitative themes (blue) and quantitative dependent
variables (yellow) and participation central to both analyses (green)
10.2.1 Qualitative relationships
While the qualitative pathways were discussed in detail in Chapter 5 and summarised in
Chapter 6, it is useful to revisit the key qualitative findings here to consider the
interconnections with the quantitative findings. As illustrated in Figure 10.1 parenthood was
commonly a catalyst to increase participation in the local community; due to an increased
need for social support and a more vested interest in the local community. The qualitative
Community interaction
Mothers’ group (MG) and
Playgroups (PG)
Local Participation
Mental well-being
isolationanxiety
reassurance
Social networks
Social support
Community Connectedness
Trust
ReciprocityParenthood
OtherImpacts
Built Environment
Relocation
Other quantitative factors• Length of residence• Two or more children• Age of residential area• Home ownership• Employment• Born overseas
181
phase participants resided in newer residential areas and for quite a few, the move to these
areas coincided with starting a family. Participation in the local community, often through
mothers’ groups and playgroups, fostered social networks, social support, community
connectedness, trust and reciprocity and these factors were often inter-related. Generally, for
the families in the qualitative phase of the study, having a supportive network of others with
small children nearby appeared to have benefits for mental well-being, as isolation and
parental anxiety was reduced through reassurance gained from sharing similar experiences
with other parents. Participants who relocated from overseas, interstate or within the
metropolitan area often experienced isolation until new social support networks were formed
through local participation. Therefore, participation was found to be pivotal. However, a lag in
physical and social infrastructure in newer residential areas, as well as limited capacity for
community groups such as mothers’ groups for second time mothers, restricted opportunities
for social interaction.
10.2.2 Quantitative relationships
The dependent variables (NCI, FSCCS, MOS-SSS, PSOHS, Local participation, Reciprocity and
WEMWBS) were selected to further explore the themes identified in the qualitative phase
(Chapter 6). These dependent variables are placed in Figure 10.1 to represent links to the
qualitative themes. The quantitative analysis found significant correlations between local
participation and all the dependent variables (NCI r=0.43, FSCCS r=0.42, MOS-SSS r=0.11,
PSOHS r=0.16, Reciprocity r=0.43 and WEMWBS r=0.14) (Section 8.4 Table 8.5). Furthermore,
correlations between mental well-being, social support, community connectedness and
reciprocity were all significant (Section 8.4 Table 8.5).
When the dependent variables were measured in subgroups to explore mothers’ group and
playgroup participation (locally, outside the area and non-participation), the findings indicated
that stronger positive associations were found with mothers’ group participation than for
playgroup participation (Chapter 9). Specifically, mothers’ group participation locally was
positively associated with all the dependent variables (NCI, FSCCS, MOS-SSS, PSOHS,
Reciprocity and WEMWBS); whereas, playgroup participation locally was only positively
associated with three social capital variables (NCI, FSCCS and reciprocity) (Figure 10.2).
These quantitative findings generally support the qualitative findings. The pivotal role of
mothers’ groups and playgroups in connecting and supporting families is discussed further in
Section 10.3.1. An increased length of residence was associated with higher levels of social
capital measures (NCI, FSCCS, Local participation, Reciprocity), and a trend over time, after
adjustment, was found for two measures (FSCCS and Reciprocity) (Figure 10.2). These results
182
support the qualitative finding that ‘it takes time’ to build social networks and connectedness
in a community, in particular when relocating from elsewhere and are further discussed in
Section 10.5.
Figure 10.2 Dependent variables and positive associations (LORD = Length of residence data
n=489, MGD = Mothers’ group data n=313, PGD = Playgroup data n=405)
Other quantitative factors that were found to have positive associations with some of the
•Mothers' group participation locally
•Playgroup participation locally
•Increased length of residence (MGD, LORD)
•Two children (MGD) Two or more children (PGD)
•Born overseas (MGD)
Neighbourhood Cohesion Index
(NCI)
•Mothers' group participation locally
•Playgroup participation locally
•Two children (MGD) Two or more children (PGD)
•Increased length of residence (LORD)
Families Social Capital and
Citizenship Survey (FSCCS)
•Mothers' group participation increase NCI, FSCCS, Reciprocity, MOS-SSS, PSOHS, WEMWBS (MGD)
•Playgroup participation increase NCI,FSCCS, and reciprocity (PGD)
•Increased length of residence (LORD)
Local Participation
•Mothers' group participation locally
•Playgroup participation locally
•Increased length of residence (MGD, PGD, LORD)
•Two children (MGD) Two or more children (PGD)
Reciprocity - provided and
received
•Mothers' group participation locally
•Gender - female (PGD)
•Two children (MGD)
Medical Outcomes Study - Social
Support Survey (MOS-SSS)
•Mothers' group participation locally or outside the area
•Home ownership (MGD, PGD)
Parent Support Outside Home Scale (PSOHS)
•Mothers' group participation locally (MGD)
•Born overseas, Gender - female (PGD)
•Two children (PGD) two or more children (MGD)
•Living in area aged <10 years (MGD)
•Part/full-time employment, higher education (MGD, PGD)
Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS)
183
dependent variables are shown in Figures 10.1 and 10.2, and included: two or more children
(NCI, reciprocity, MOS-SSS, WEMWBS), resident in an area developed 10 years and older
(FSCCS), resident in an area developed within last 10 years (WEMWBS), born overseas (NCI,
WEMWBS), home ownership (MOS-SSS, PSOHS) and employment (WEMWBS). These factors
are discussed further in this chapter.
Overall, the qualitative and quantitative findings support the proposition that ‘participation’ is
pivotal for fostering supportive networks, mental well-being and building community
connectedness. However, in the quantitative analysis mothers’ group participation locally
appears to have a stronger and more protective association than participation in playgroups
locally. The following sections discuss in more detail these factors and relationships using the
modified conceptual social capital framework (Chapter 5, manuscript 1) as a guide, which is
then followed by a discussion of other factors indicated in Figure 10.1.
10.3 SOCIAL CAPITAL COMPONENTS
A conceptual social capital framework suitable for families with young children was proposed
in the literature review (Chapter 2), and then explored and modified in light of the qualitative
findings (Chapter 5 manuscript 1) and is shown in Figure 10.3. The findings of the dependent
variables (NCI, FSCCS, Participation, Reciprocity, MOS-SSS, and PSOHS) are discussed within
this social capital framework.
Figure 10.3 Social capital framework for families with young children (Chapter 5, manuscript 1)
Structural social capital: ‘what you do’
Cognitive social capital: ‘what you feel’
Social
support Reciprocity
Trust and
shared
values
Social
action
and
norms
Participation in
groups and
networks in the
community
184
10.3.1 Participation and social networks
To recap, participation (Section 2.3.5) in a community may range from informal with
neighbours, family and friends to more formal as a member of a group or organisation, which
may include active and non-active roles (Stern & Fullerton 2009). Berry and Welsh (2010 p
589) propose that participation “is responsible for creating and maintaining (personal social)
cohesion”, which they ascribe to as the cognitive components of social capital. Berry and
Welsh (2010) also included examples of emotional and instrumental social support in their
‘personal social cohesion’ items (Section 2.3.3). While their cross sectional study was not able
to test the causality of their proposition, they found significant associations where higher
levels of participation were associated with higher levels of personal social cohesion and both
were positively related to better levels of mental health (Berry & Welsh 2010).
In this study, participation locally was explored broadly in the qualitative phase, from informal
interaction with others in the community to participating in a community group such as
mothers’ groups and playgroups (Chapter 5). The qualitative analysis found that participation
generally was fundamental in generating a sense of living amongst others and feeling
connected to the local community. Through participation in groups, which were commonly
mothers’ groups and playgroups, social networks were built and friendships forged, and
community connectedness was enhanced. Essentially, the findings in the qualitative analyses
adds to the evidence on the positive relationships between participation, social cohesion and
community connectedness (Baum & Palmer 2002; Wood et al. 2013; Ziersch, Osborne & Baum
2011) that supports Berry and Welsh’s proposition; that the relationship between participation
and social cohesion is ‘causal’ where participation increases social cohesion (Berry & Welsh
2010).
In addition to the social capital benefits, the qualitative findings found that participation in
groups such as mothers’ groups and playgroups were important sources of supportive
networks and peer learning, which also helped to reduce parental anxiety. Our findings are
also consistent with other qualitative studies and evaluations that found the benefits of
mothers’ groups to include: peer learning (Guest & Keatinge 2009; Kruske et al. 2004) and
social support networks (Scott, Brady & Glynn 2001; Fielden & Gallagher 2008; Hjälmhult et al.
2014) as key positive outcomes. Furthermore, the findings are congruent with qualitative
studies of supported playgroups and parent support programs that found social support and
social network benefits for parents (Jackson 2011b; Jackson 2013; Mills et al. 2012).
Quantitative analysis for participation was initially measured as the number of local activities
involved in the last 12 months (Sections 8.3.3 and 8.4 and discussed in Section 10.2.2).
185
However, it was important to investigate participation through community groups that were
more universal in use by families with young children. As mothers’ groups and playgroups
were commonly the means of local community group participation, as well as participation
outside the local area, for families with preschool aged children, the quantitative analysis had
a strong focus on these two types of community groups.
Mothers’ groups and Playgroups
The mothers’ group data, with the oldest child 0-5 years (n=331), indicated that 65.9%
participated in mothers’ groups (facilitated and/or parent-led) either locally and/or outside the
area. The playgroup data with a child aged 1-4 years and the oldest 1-17 years (n=421),
indicated that 57.1% participated in playgroup (facilitated and/or parent-led) either locally
and/or outside the area.
After adjusting for demographic variables and removal of mothers (n=18) who participated in
mothers’ groups both locally and outside the area, the quantitative results of the mothers’
group data (n=313) found that mothers who participated in mothers’ groups locally scored
significantly higher than those who had not participated for social capital (NCI, FSCCS,
reciprocity), social support (MOS-SSS, PSOHS) and mental well-being (WEMWBS). In addition,
those who participated in mothers’ group outside the area scored significantly higher than
those who had not participated in a mothers’ group for one support measure (PSOHS), which
suggests that mothers’ group participation either locally or outside the area may be beneficial
in building social support from outside the home. Overall, these findings suggest that mothers’
group participation locally has several benefits that help families to connect and build
supportive networks. While mothers’ group participation outside the area does not appear to
have the same level of benefit, the mean scores were consistently higher than for mothers
who did not participate in a mothers’ group at all within the previous 12 months.
Some different patterns of association were observed in the quantitative results relating to
playgroup participation. After adjusting for demographic variables and removal of parents
(n=16) who participated in playgroup both locally and outside the area, the analysis of
playgroup data (n=405) found that parents who participated in playgroups locally scored
significantly higher than those who had not participated for social capital measures (NCI, FSCCS
and reciprocity) but not for social support measures (MOS-SSS, PSOHS) and mental well-being
(WEMWBS). Nevertheless, those who participated in playgroup either locally or outside the
area had a higher mean score than those who did not participate for both social support
measures (Section 9.3.2 Table 9.8). These findings suggest that playgroup participation locally
186
has benefits that help families to connect locally and to build social capital. Conversely,
playgroup participation outside the area does not appear to have the same impact.
Mothers’ group participation, which was controlled for in the playgroup data analysis, was
positively associated with NCI, FSCCS, reciprocity, MOS-SSS and PSOHS. When examined, there
were no interactions between mothers’ group and playgroup participation. In other words, the
study found that the effects of mothers’ group and playgroup participation were independent
of each other.
There are no other quantitative studies in the published literature that have reported
associations between social capital measures and participation in mothers’ groups or
playgroups. There are only a small number of studies that have found positive relationships
between participation in community or group activity and social capital measures such as
social cohesion (Berry & Welsh 2010; Wood et al. 2013; Ziersch, Osborne & Baum 2011;
Molitor et al. 2011; Kirkby‐Geddes, King & Bravington 2013; Boneham & Sixsmith 2006). One
explanation for the relative dearth of studies is offered by Abbott (2010), who argues that the
relationship between participation and social capital appears to be ‘a given’ by social capital
theorists, and consequently the connection between the two has been underexplored. Abbott
(2010) proposes that social surveys should be broader in measuring different types of
participation. I concur and propose the addition of groups such as mothers’ groups and
playgroups would add valuable data for studying families with young children in large
government led social surveys of populations.
10.3.2 Social action, norms, shared values and trust
While social action and norms are a form of structural (what you do) social capital, and trust
and shared values a cognitive (what you feel) social capital, I discuss them together here as
they were quantitatively measured within the same scales, the NCI and FSCCS. The statements
in the NCI and FSCCS measures include behaviours (what you do) and perceptions (what you
feel). For example, ‘I borrow things and exchange favours with my neighbours’ (NCI –
behaviour); ‘I believe my neighbours would help me in an emergency’ (NCI - perception); and,
‘Most people in this neighbourhood can be trusted’ (FSCCS – perception).
As indicated in Sections 10.2 and 10.3.1, participation appears to be pivotal in building
community connectedness. This was supported in both the qualitative and the quantitative
phases of this study, the latter as indicated by the positive associations between local
participation and NCI and FSCCS (Table 8.5). Mohnen et al. (2013) contend that social capital
‘exposure intensity’ through increased interaction and participation in local communities is
187
important for the well-being of families with young children. However, Mohnen et al. (2013)
also found length of residence as ‘duration of exposure’ to be a moderating factor. In this
study, the length of residence also appeared to influence the NCI and FSCCS scores, as those
who had lived three years or longer in their current suburb scored significantly higher for both
NCI and FSCCS (Section 8.6), and this is discussed in detail in Section 10.4. Essentially, what
these findings suggest is that ‘it takes time’ to build these social capital measures for
individuals at the local community level.
Two other demographic variables showed an effect on the NCI and FSCCS score levels (Figure
10.2). Those with two children (mothers’ group data) and those with two or more children
(playgroup data) scored higher for NCI and FSCCS than those with one child, and mothers born
overseas scored higher for NCI than those born in Australia. These findings suggest that having
two or more children is likely to influence the intensity and variety of time spent participating
in local communities, which may in turn, help to build these social capital measures. These
findings are congruent with Mohnen et al.’s (2013) view on ‘exposure intensity’ in local
communities. For example, mothers with two children are likely to be involved in more local
activities, such as mothers’ group, playgroup and preschool programs for different age groups,
which provide a variety of opportunities to build social networks with others in the local
community that assists this process. This is discussed further in 10.3.1 (participation) and is
consistent with the findings of several authors of studies related to families with young
children (Vesely, Ewaida & Kearney 2013; Hjälmhult et al. 2014; Andrews et al. 2014).
Social action is not measured within the NCI and FSCCS scales. The qualitative findings found
only a few examples of social action, such as attending meetings on local community issues
(Chapter 5, manuscript 1), as parents were often not in a position to take on social action due
to the care needs of very young children. Therefore, a measure for social action was not
selected in the quantitative phase. Nevertheless, the social action vignette as described in
Section 5.2.5 (manuscript 1) illustrates how parents of young children may have a vested
interest and concern in their local area, which they act upon to improve their community for
their family.
Researchers in a number of countries have found positive associations between higher levels
of trust and lower mortality rates (Kawachi et al. 1997), self-rated health (Lindström 2004;
Giordano et al. 2013) and stronger neighbourhood connections (Ziersch et al. 2005).
Notwithstanding, the difficulties measuring trust are well critiqued by several authors (Abbott
& Freeth 2008; Glaeser et al. 2000; Leigh 2006; Carpiano & Fitterer 2014; Lindström 2014). The
qualitative findings illustrated how trust may be experienced by families in local communities
188
as a factor closely inter-connected with other social capital features and resources such as
shared values and support through social networks (Chapter 5, manuscript 1). In the survey the
item on trust was part of the four items that made up the FSCCS scale (Section 6.4.1). Trust has
not been measured as a singular item in this study as it is likely to be inter-related with other
social capital items, as illustrated in the qualitative analysis.
10.3.3 Social support
The qualitative analysis in this study found social support to be a vital factor for the well-being
of mothers with young children (Chapter 5). While the support from partners was important,
the social support from outside the home was found to be also very important, in particular for
new mothers and those families who had relocated. In the qualitative discussion, new mothers
typically wanted social support from other mothers at a similar life stage and ‘experiencing the
same things’. Mothers who had relocated or were without an extended family or network
often experienced isolation until a new social network was formed. Commonly these new
social networks were formed through mothers’ groups or playgroups.
Quantitative social support measures (MOS-SSS and PSOHS)
Informed by the qualitative findings was the decision to measure social support in the
quantitative survey, as social support broadly with a modified MOS-SSS, as well as specifically
for parent social support from outside the home. To address this, the Parent Support Outside
Home Scale (PSOHS) was developed for this study. It was tested in the pilot survey (test and
retest) with eight items and showed moderate to good agreement with intra-class correlations
(Chapter 7). This was expanded for the main survey to 10 items. Reliability testing for the pilot
(test and retest) and main survey found consistently high Cronbach’s (0.93-0.95) and moderate
to high inter-item correlations (0.53-0.92). Factor analysis identified two factors: 1)
informational, emotional and companionship support; and 2) instrumental support (Table 8.4).
These findings are similar in part to reported factor analyses of the MOS-SSS (Sherbourne &
Stewart 1991) and modified MOS-SSS versions (Gjesfjeld et al. 2008) that found informational
and emotional support formed one subscale, however, positive social interaction
(companionship) formed another subscale. The correlation between the two social support
measures (PSOHS, MOS-SSS) was positive and strong (r=0.71). These findings suggest that the
PSOHS appears to have measured what was intended.
The findings from the PSOHS analysis indicate that the items with the lowest mean scores
were the three instrumental support items (Table 8.3). In contrast, the items for information,
emotional and appraisal support had higher means. These findings suggest that some of the
189
parents in this study may have felt a shortfall in available practical help in caring for their child
or when they, their child or other family member was unwell, in comparison to other forms of
social support reported. This is an interesting finding and may reflect an erosion of traditional
‘hands-on’ support due to fragmentation of extended families and social networks (Poole
2005; Liamputtong 2006; Hayes et al. 2011), and possibly grandparents who are still in the
workforce (ABS 2010b).
As discussed in Section 10.3.1, those who participated in mothers’ group (Section 9.2) scored
higher means for both MOS-SSS (participated locally) and PSOHS (participated locally or
outside the area) than those who did not participate at all within the last 12 months, while
there was no significant association in the playgroup data analysis (section 9.3) between
playgroup participation and either MOS-SSS or PSOHS. These findings are important and
suggest that mothers’ group participation may be more crucial in providing a supportive
network than playgroup participation. This finding is particularly concerning in light of the
qualitative findings that found that mothers who had relocated from overseas, interstate or
just other suburban areas commonly lost the support of a mothers’ group, at least in face to
face contact. Mothers who had relocated often found they were not able to join another
mothers’ group, or with their subsequent infants, in their new location due to limited capacity
of the child health service. This left some of the mothers feeling isolated and disconnected
until new local support networks were formed through other means. Currently, government
child health services in Australia generally only facilitate mothers’ groups for ‘new’ parents,
although there is some variation in service delivery across states (Schmied et al. 2014). The
limited capacity for access to mothers’ groups for all mothers with infants, in particular those
who had relocated, was identified in this study as a service gap.
Overall support external to the home (single item from ALCS)
In addition to the above social support measures (MOS-SSS and PSOHS) a single item (ALCS) of
perceived overall support external to the home was also measured. In both the mothers’
group and playgroup subgroups analyses, there were significant differences for the single
measure for overall support outside the home (Sections 9.2.4 and 9.3.4). Receiving enough
help or not needing any help (ALCS item) was reported more by those who participated locally
in mothers’ group (77.2%) or playgroup (74.6%), compared to mothers’ group (72.5%) or
playgroup (66.2%) participation outside the area or non-participation in mothers’ group
(56.6%) or playgroup (58.3%). While only a single measure, the ALCS findings support the
proposition that local participation in either mothers’ groups or playgroups may be beneficial
in fostering social support outside the home. The LSAC study (Zubrick et al. 2008) found that
190
nearly three quarters of participants reported receiving enough help, which is comparable to
our participants who participated locally but considerably higher than our respondents who
did not participate in mothers’ groups or playgroups at all in the last 12 months.
Demographic associations with social support factors
Demographic variables that were found to have a positive association with social support
included (Figure 10.2): being female (MOS-SSS), having two children compared to one child
(MOS-SSS) and homeownership (PSOHS). Having more support (MOS-SSS) with two children
compared to one child may possibly reflect lower levels of perceived support experienced by
mothers with one child, which includes new mothers. This is discussed further in 10.4.2 with
mental well-being. The positive association with homeownership is an interesting finding and
may reflect a stronger motivation to build supportive social networks in the local community
(Manturuk, Lindblad & Quercia 2010) because of a long term commitment to the area.
Knowing other parents with young children who lived nearby was found to be important for
building social support in the qualitative analysis and aligns with findings from a recent studies
in Norway (Hjälmhult et al. 2014) and the USA (Vesely, Ewaida & Kearney 2013). Hjälmhult et
al. (2014) evaluated benefits of facilitated parent groups that were for either new parents or
parents with subsequent infants and found that parents appreciated knowing others who lived
in the same neighbourhood. Hjälmhult et al. (2014) recommended facilitators to compose
parent groups from those who live in the same neighbourhoods in order to support the
development of more informal supportive connections in the local communities. A study on
early childhood education programs for poor immigrant mothers in USA (Vesely, Ewaida &
Kearney 2013) found that those who lived nearby to each other were more able to support
each other, and forge stronger friendships, than those who did not have anyone nearby. Other
evaluations of parent programs have found similar social support and network benefits for
participants who were able to meet other participants who lived locally (Fielden & Gallagher
2008; Matthey & Barnett 2005; Young 2009; Jackson 2011b).
The view that mothers need other mothers or alloparents is argued by authors in evolutionary
socio-biology as essential for human survival (Hrdy 2011), in early childhood education as
important for expanding a circle of attachment and care for children (Sims 2009), and in child
health as crucial in learning how to parent (Moore 2005; 2008). Collectively, the findings in this
study are in align with these views and argue strongly for ensuring the presence of community
groups and other opportunities for families within their local communities to meet and
develop supportive networks with other families with young children.
191
10.3.4 Reciprocity
Experiences of reciprocity are likely to be different amongst individuals, neighbours, and social
networks (Abbott & Freeth 2008) and this was evident from the qualitative analysis. Despite
variations in experiences of reciprocity, families with young children generally wanted to
connect to their local community, to know others who lived in the neighbourhood and to help
or have help nearby if needed (Chapter 5). Typical examples of reciprocity from the qualitative
findings ranged from helping neighbours in need to helping members of mothers’ groups or
playgroups in practical ways; for example, minding children.
Reciprocity can be measured quantitatively as a behaviour (activity) or as an attitude of
willingness to help others (Abbott & Freeth 2008; Harpham 2008). Reciprocity as an activity
has been found to be positively associated with neighbourhood connections (Ziersch et al.
2005). Quantitatively, reciprocity was measured in this study by an item capturing the number
of events in the last 12 months that involved doing something for someone in the
neighbourhood or involved someone doing something in the neighbourhood for the
respondent. The quantitative analysis found significantly higher reciprocity scores for those
who had lived three years or longer in their current suburb, and both mothers’ group and
playgroup participation locally had a positive association with reciprocity (Figure 10.2). These
results support the qualitative findings that local participation and increased length of
residence enhanced reciprocity activity. This finding is also congruent with Ziersch et al. (2005)
who found an association between length of residence and reciprocity activity.
When investigated further, those who participated locally in mothers’ groups and playgroups
reported higher levels of reciprocity compared to those who did not participate. However, the
reciprocity mean for those who participated in playgroup outside the area was lower than
those who did not participate in playgroup. This is interesting and suggests that participation in
playgroup outside the area may be influenced by other possible factors, such as social
networks outside the area, poor social networks within the local area, or recent relocation
where opportunities of reciprocity have been limited in the new area while playgroup
participation remains in the old area. Adjustment of demographic variables found one other
positive association for reciprocity. Parents with two children (mothers’ group data) and with
two or more children (playgroup data) scored significantly higher on reciprocity scores than
parents with only one child, which may reflect an increase in opportunities to interact with
others locally and a possible increased need in practical help with children (caring for a child
was one of the reciprocal options listed).
192
For families with young children, other qualitative studies have also found that when there are
opportunities to foster social networks and friendships then reciprocal activity is common,
such as with minding each other’s children (Vesely, Ewaida & Kearney 2013; Jackson 2011b).
The qualitative and quantitative findings in this study are compatible with the proposition by
Abbott and Freeth (2008) that reciprocity helps to maintain social networks and participation
in communities.
This ends the discussion on the social capital framework. The following three sections discuss
the associations with mental well-being, the built environment as well as length of residence in
more detail.
10.4 MENTAL WELL-BEING
During interviews and focus groups participants commented on how social networks garnered
through participation in a mothers’ group or playgroup often reduced their parental anxiety
and helped them ‘to cope’ as experiences could be shared. Parents spoke of how they felt
reassured and supported when other parents had experienced the same things, which were
commonly normal child development. Therefore, the qualitative findings support the notion
that participation in supportive groups, such as mothers’ groups and playgroups, may help to
foster the positive mental well-being of parents with young children.
The quantitative phase sought to investigate the relationship with positive mental well-being
further. Studies of the mental health of mothers of infants commonly focus on postnatal
depression, which has been inversely associated with informal social support and parental self-
efficacy (Leahy-Warren, McCarthy & Corcoran 2011). However, measures of mental ill health
were intentionally not included, as it was felt to be important to assess overall mental well-
being rather than identifying a subgroup experiencing specific symptoms or conditions of
mental ill health. Several authors (see for example Tennant et al. 2007; Bech et al. 2003; Weich
et al. 2011) have argued that measuring mental well-being, which is sometimes referred to as
positive mental health, provides a wider scope of psychological well-being rather than the
absence of anxiety or depression symptoms. This view is further supported by Weich et al.’s
(2011) study which found that mental well-being, while correlated with mental illness was
generally independent, as people with poor mental health could still experience mental well-
being.
Positive mental health encompasses both hedonic (affect, happiness and life satisfaction) and
eudaimonic (cognitive and psychological functioning such as interpersonal relationships and
perceived competence) perspectives (Tennant et al. 2007; Weich et al. 2011). The WEMWBS
193
(Tennant et al. 2007) which is a scale of positive mental well-being items was used in this study
(Section 6.4.1). In the findings of this study, the WEMWBS overall median of 52 is slightly
higher than the median of 51 found by the WEMWBS designers (Tennant et al. 2007), and at
the upper end of the range of medians (38-52) reported from a population study in Ireland
(Lloyd & Devine 2012).
10.4.1 Mental well-being and mothers’ group and playgroup participation
The association of mothers’ group and playgroup participation with the WEMWBS was
measured. After adjustment of demographic variables, those in the mothers’ group data
(n=313, oldest child 0-5 years) who participated in mothers’ group locally scored significantly
higher means than those who did not participate in a mothers’ group at all within the last 12
months. On the other hand, for those in the playgroup data (n=405, child/ren 1-4 years, and
oldest child 1-17 years) there was no positive association with playgroup participation either
locally or outside the area for WEMWBS scores.
The findings from the mothers’ group data suggest that there may be benefits for mental well-
being from ongoing participation in a mothers’ group throughout the preschool years as
respondents’ oldest children were 0-5 years of age and almost half of the mothers
participating in mothers’ group had two or more children. This is further supported by the
positive association between mothers group participation (locally and outside the area) and
mental well-being (WEMWBS) in the playgroup data analysis where the oldest child was 1-17
years of age.
10.4.2 Mental well-being and demographic associations
There were several demographic associations with mental well-being. Firstly, mothers scored
higher WEMWBS means than fathers. As it was a small sample of fathers (n=17) it is not
possible to draw conclusions but it warrants further research.
Overall, parents of two children (playgroup data) and two or more children (mothers’ group
data) scored higher means for mental well-being than parents of one child. This is concerning
as our sample of parents with one child included new parents, and new parents are more
vulnerable for mental health problems, such as postnatal depression (Leahy-Warren, McCarthy
& Corcoran 2011). However, the data also included parents with one child aged up to five
years, so it is not possible to draw any conclusions as there may be other factors impacting on
the mental well-being of those participants in this study. Nonetheless, these findings highlight
the potential mental well-being benefits from mothers’ group participation (facilitated and
parent-led), and importance for linking new parents into supportive groups.
194
In this study mothers who were born overseas had higher levels of mental well-being than
mothers born in Australia (Figure 10.2). This is in contrast to findings from other research
where overseas born have scored lower on psychological health measures (Lindström, Ali &
Rosvall 2012), and where mothers who were born overseas fared worse during the postnatal
period on mental health measures (Eastwood et al. 2013). Nevertheless, studies have found
that where local communities are supportive and inclusive, overseas migrants settle in and
fare well (Jackson et al. 2013; Ramsden & Taket 2013).
In the mothers’ group data there appeared to be a positive association between mental well-
being and living in a residential area developed within the last 10 years compared to older
residential areas. However there was no association between mental well-being and home
ownership. As newer residential areas have the potential for less social interaction than older
areas, due to a lag of physical and social infrastructure, it is encouraging that higher levels of
mental well-being were found in this sample of mothers (oldest child 0-5 years) who lived in
newer residential areas. There may be other factors at play here such as optimism for an
improved quality of life in a new area (Corcoran, Gray & Peillon 2008) or possibly the families
in this sample who made the move to a newer area may have had better mental well-being to
start with. Mental well-being is complex and the findings here raise more questions than
provide answers.
Paid employment either part-time or full-time had stronger associations with mental well-
being in the playgroup data (oldest child 1-17 years) compared to a very weak association
(p=0.049) between part-time employment and mental well-being with the mothers’ group
data (oldest child 0-5 years). These findings suggest there may be the possibility of a transition
during early motherhood when paid employment may impact more on mental well-being. A
positive relationship between maternal employment and mental well-being was found by
Gjerdingen et al. (2014). However, their study sample was mothers with infants (mean = 13.4
months of age), of which 33% were new parents and there was no reporting on the ages of the
other children in families with more than one child (Gjerdingen et al. 2014). Another larger
study (n=1364) of maternal employment from infancy through the primary school years
concluded an overall benefit to mental well-being for mothers with part-time employment
compared to those not in paid employment (Buehler & O'Brien 2011). This area warrants
further investigation, and is highly topical in many countries where the participation of women
with children in the paid workplace continues to increase (Baxter 2013b; Young 2014). Such
research needs to also consider factors that could have a positive or negative influence on the
relationship between mental well-being and employment; for example, employment choices,
career opportunities, increasing family income, and education attained.
195
Those participants with a university education scored higher WEMWBS means than those with
an apprentice or equivalent qualification in both the mothers’ group and playgroup samples.
Education attained has been found to influence employment opportunities for mothers
returning to the workforce, where those with higher education and higher paid employment
re-joined the paid workforce sooner than those with lesser qualifications and lower paid
employment (Fagan & Norman 2012). While education is well recognised as a determinant of
health and well-being (Keleher & MacDougall 2009), there is now recent research using the
WEMWBS that has found a positive relationship between a higher level of education and
mental well-being (Cheng & Furnham 2014).
10.4.3 Mental well-being and community connectedness
The relationship between mental well-being and community connectedness was not
specifically explored in the qualitative phase. However, the association between mental well-
being (WEMWBS) and social capital variables (NCI, FSCCS, Local and reciprocity) was assessed
(Section 8.4) in the quantitative analysis, and small but significant positive correlations were
found. Other studies have found similar associations between positive mental health and
neighbourhood connections (Ziersch et al. 2005) and social cohesion (Berry & Welsh 2010).
The study by Ziersch et al. (2005) was a mixed methods design where follow-up interviews
explored the relationships found in the survey analysis. In their study (Ziersch et al. 2005)
residents illustrated that congenial informal interaction with others in the neighbourhood was
an indicator of a ‘healthy community’, which supported the association found between
community connections and positive mental health.
More recently a study by Jones et al. (2014) found associations between mental well-being as
measured with the WEMWBS and cognitive social capital, in particular for those with positive
relationships with others in the local community. Another recent study found an association
between higher social capital and lower Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Score (EPDS) scores
during pregnancy and up to10 weeks postnatal (Kritsotakis et al. 2013). However, this is the
first study to our knowledge that has investigated the relationship between mental well-being
and social capital measures specifically for parents with young children aged 0-5 years. The
next section will look more closely at the findings related to the built environment.
10.5 THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
The qualitative phase was conducted solely in newer residential areas (developed within the
previous 10 years) in the urban growth corridors of Perth. This was based on two factors: 1) a
disproportionate number of families with young children live in such areas (ABS 2012a), often
196
moving just as they start their family (Andrews et al. 2014); and 2) there is commonly a lag in
the physical and social infrastructure in newer residential areas that supports local interaction
(Elton Consulting 2012a; Elton Consulting 2012b). It was hypothesised therefore, that there
may be greater risk for isolation and disconnectedness, compounded by the relocation
experiences until new social networks area formed. The qualitative findings confirmed the lag
in community infrastructure and shopping hubs. There was also an observed lag in ‘third
places’ as described by Oldenburg (1999) such as cafes where families can to get together.
Despite the lack of local amenity, the qualitative research also found that mothers were
generally pro-active and often sought community groups and services in adjacent suburbs if a
shortfall in their own areas. Nevertheless, relocation compounded by a lag of physical and
social infrastructure locally such as community centres with available mothers’ groups and
playgroups, and shopping hubs had left some of the mothers feeling a sense of isolation until
eventually new social networks were developed. Where mothers were able to participate and
interact locally then community connectedness was increased (as described in detail in
Chapter 5).
The quantitative phase of the study recruited a sample of parents with young children parents
residing in newer residential areas in the ‘urban sprawl’, as such areas are commonly
populated by families with young children. It was planned to compare where possible,
dependent variable differences between families living in newer residential areas (<10 years)
compared to older more established areas (10 years). Of the final survey sample, 60.8%
reported living in an area developed within the last 10 years, and 83.2% lived in postcodes
further than 15km from the CBD. Therefore, the majority of the survey sample was fairly
representative of families with young children who lived in newer areas and/or in the ‘urban
sprawl’ corridors in Perth, Western Australia.
10.5.1 Associations with age of residential area and distance from CBD
A focus of the quantitative analysis was to compare newer residential and/or outer suburban
areas with older residential and/or inner suburban areas. There was however, only one
significant association for age of residential area (<10 years or 10 years) indicated and there
were no significant associations for any of the postcode distances from the CBD (0-15km, 15-
30km, > 30km within the metropolitan area of Perth). The one significant finding, which was
also discussed in Section 10.4.2 , was from the mothers’ group data with oldest child aged 0-5
years (n=331) where the participants in the younger areas (<10 years) had higher mean scores
for mental well-being (WEMWBS) than those in older more established areas (10 years). The
relationship between newer areas and mental well-being may reflect many factors as
197
discussed in Section 10.4.2. There were no associations found for age of residential area in the
playgroup analysis.
10.5.2 Where ever they hang their hats
The qualitative findings in this study support the need for physical and social infrastructure
that provides opportunities for families to meet other families with young children in local
communities in newer residential areas. The quantitative findings in this study found that
those participants living in newer residential areas or in the ‘urban sprawl’ did not score less
than those participants living in more established areas or closer to the CBD for any of the
dependent variables (NCI, FSCCS, MOS-SSS, PSOHS, Reciprocity and WEMWBS).
These quantitative findings relating to age of residential area and postcode distance in this
study, suggest that the experiences of families with young children in building social capital
and social support networks, and participation and reciprocity within local communities are
not significantly different in more established areas (10 years) or for those who live closer to
the city centre. In other words, building a supportive network and becoming connected to your
community appears to be a universal experience - where ever they hang their hats.
Nonetheless, the qualitative findings support the need for timely development of
infrastructure, and opportunities for interaction and participation that support families with
young children; to reduce isolation experienced in newer residential areas where such
infrastructure is still emerging. Furthermore, newer residential areas sometimes have difficulty
establishing and maintaining playgroups (Sneddon & Haynes 2003), which indicates a need for
adequate planning and support of such infrastructure and community groups (Witten et al.
2009; Williams & Pocock 2010; Andrews et al. 2014) or risk creating areas of disadvantage
(Elton Consulting 2012a). At the same time, established areas may not have suitable physical
and social infrastructure for residents to interact, such as in Svendsen’s (2006) Danish study,
which found newcomers had limited opportunities to meet long term residents due to a lack of
meeting places.
Family friendly communities
Our findings are compatible with the studies by Sweet et al (2005) in the USA, which explored
perceptions of what constitutes a ‘family friendly’ community. Sweet et al (2005) found that
recreational, educational and cultural opportunities, family and community events, and
neighbourliness were all commonly identified as features of a family friendly community.
Implicit within this finding is the need to have suitable physical and social infrastructure in the
community. Furthermore, the same study (Swisher, Sweet & Moen 2004; Sweet 2005) which
198
was undertaken in established areas and another study in newer residential areas in Ireland
(Corcoran, Gray & Peillon 2008) both found that residents perceived communities to be more
‘family friendly’ and supportive overall when they had relationships with others in the local
community at similar life stages.
More recently, researchers in urban planning (Warner & Rukus 2013) and urban economic
management (Reese 2012; Reese 2014) have argued for stronger shaping of urban policy that
includes a focus on retaining residents across the life course. Reese’s (2012) study found
higher economic health was associated with residents of child bearing years, and local
amenities and services such as schools, which are important for families with children. Reese
(2012 p 23) concludes that development and investment in a community to be a “better place
to live, and a better place for families (of any type or form)” is associated with economic
growth. Warner and Rukus (2013) argue that in order to create such ‘child friendly’ or a better
place for families, urban planners need to change and embrace input and participation from
families during planning phases; for example, through publicly held local meetings. However,
Warner and Rukus (2013) acknowledge that such a change in planning process is not without
difficulties as planners are generally not accustomed with engaging community members in
their field of work. The qualitative findings in this study and the evidence of Reece (2012;
2014) support the need for timely development of family friendly infrastructure in local
communities. The next section will look more closely at the impact of family relocation and
length or residence.
10.6 FAMILY RELOCATION AND LENGTH OF RESIDENCE
The qualitative analysis found that relocation commonly impacted on social interaction and
support, and potentially increased isolation for families with young children, whether a move
was from another country, state, region or even suburb, until new social networks were
developed. Therefore, it was important to investigate quantitatively the potential impact of
relocation on perceived social capital, social support and mental wellbeing measures. The
majority of the survey respondents had experienced relocation as 71% indicated they had
moved house at least once within the last five years (within suburb, or from another suburb,
region, state or country). However, the mobility survey item was not quantifiable (see section
8.6.1) so the discussion here will focus on length of residence (LOR) as the indicator of
relocation.
While associations with length of residence have been highlighted in two other sections
(10.3.2 and 10.3.4) a total summary will be provided here. A significant positive trend (Section
199
8.6.2 Table 8.9) was found between length of residence and two social capital measures
(FSCCS and reciprocity). Specifically, as length of residence increased so did these social capital
scores. A two group analysis (Section 8.6.2 Table 8.10) found that older residents (LOR3
years) participated and reciprocated more within their local communities, and scored higher
on NCI and FSCCS measures than newer residents (LOR<3 years). Furthermore, regression
analysis found positive associations between LOR3 years and NCI (mothers’ group data), and
between LOR3 years and reciprocity (mothers’ group and playgroup data).
These findings for length of residence illustrate how ‘it takes time’ to build structural and
cognitive social capital and to become involved in the local community. Furthermore, these
findings are consistent with Ziersch et al.’s (2005) survey results which found stronger
neighbourhood connections for those who had lived longer in the area, in particular for those
resident 15 years or more. The qualitative findings of Ziersch et al.’s (2005) study indicated
that isolation was experienced by some residents who were relatively newcomers or who
spent a lot of time outside the area. A recent study in The Netherlands (Mohnen et al. 2013)
found stronger associations between social capital and health for those who had been resident
between six and 22 years than for those who had been resident less than six years or greater
than 22 years. The authors concluded that interventions to build social capital may be
beneficial for newcomers and families with young children (Mohnen et al. 2013). While these
studies and other authors have found positive relationships between length of residence and
social capital measures (Leyden 2003; Hanibuchi et al. 2012), there have been other studies
that have shown no relationship once other demographic variables were adjusted for (Jones et
al. 2014; Wood, Frank & Giles-Corti 2010). As relocation, for example through migration,
housing needs or mobility due to employment factors is increasing in Australia and other OECD
countries (Kulu & Milewski 2008; ABS 2012b; 2014a; OECD 2013) further research is required
in this area to have a better understanding of the impact on individual families and local
communities.
Overall, the findings correspond with Putnam’s (2000 p 204) view “…for people as for plants,
frequent repotting disrupts root systems. It takes time…to put down new roots.” Indeed, these
findings are intuitive and underscore the importance of supporting new residents’ involvement
in their local communities, particularly for families with preschool aged children who may not
have other avenues such as schools to meet other families, and are therefore at greater risk of
isolation.
200
10.7 STUDY LIMITATIONS AND STRENGTHS
There are a number of study limitations and strengths of this study that are described in this
section; although some of the qualitative limitations and strengths have been discussed in the
manuscripts in Chapter 5. They are grouped under the themes of study design, sample
selection and recruitment, construct measurement, and generalizability of findings.
10.7.1 Study Design
Mixed methods design
The sequential mixed methods design was a strength in this study. The sequential informing of
one method to the next method enabled a close focus on community participation, concerns
and themes peculiar to families with young children, particularly in newer residential areas.
The subsequent findings from both the qualitative and quantitative phases provided a deep
and comprehensive understanding of how families with young children are faring in our newer
suburbs; for example, the associations between community groups such as mothers’ groups
and playgroups and social support and social capital. The limitation of mixed methods design is
simply the time required to undertake a comprehensive study.
Conceptual social capital framework
The proposed conceptual social capital framework for families with young children is
considered a strength of this study. The framework was developed from the social capital and
socio-ecological literature (Chapter 2 Sections 2.2-2.3), and was used for the investigation of
factors such as the impact of the built environment and community groups on social capital at
the local community level (Chapter 5 Manuscript 1). Therefore, multiple factors and inter-
connections can be examined both qualitatively and quantitatively and then discussed to
describe the possible pathways of associations.
Cross-sectional design
Cross-sectional designs are limited as causal inferences cannot be drawn. For example, while
significant positive associations were found between participation in mothers’ groups and
higher levels of social capital, it is not possible to determine whether mothers with higher
social capital attended mothers’ group or that social capital developed from the participation.
Longitudinal studies are needed to investigate direction and causality. On the other hand,
cross-sectional studies are very useful in exploring themes and associations that can inform
further research and potentially policy and practice. In addition, the qualitative findings
201
support the need to improve opportunities for families of young children to meet other
families, such as through mothers’ groups and participation. The collective findings from this
mixed methods design is a strength of the study.
10.7.2 Sample selection and recruitment
Qualitative sample
Purposeful sampling was used to garner a variety of perspectives. However, despite efforts to
garner broad culturally and diverse perspectives, the qualitative participants were from mainly
English speaking backgrounds and all had partners. Therefore, the qualitative findings may not
reflect those mothers who did not have partners and those from more diverse cultural
backgrounds.
Quantitative sample
The lack of random selection was a limitation of the survey sample. Initial recruitment with
random selection of playgroups, child care centres and other resources used by families with
young children was ineffective in garnering enough respondents. A subsequent expansion to
include recruitment through all playgroups and services involved with families across all local
government regions with newer residential areas in the ‘urban sprawl’ improved respondent
numbers; albeit random selection for recruitment was lost. However, the target audience was
well reached as indicated by the 83.4% of respondents who lived in postcode areas greater
than 15 km from the CBD of Perth and 60.7% of respondents who identified as living in a
residential area that had been developed within the last 10 years.
Fathers were encouraged to participate in the study; however, 95.5% of respondents were
mothers. Nevertheless, despite more families with both parents in paid employment, the
majority of mothers with young children (aged 0-4 years) remain the primary care givers of
young children (Craig, Mullan & Blaxland 2010). For example, in a 2006 ABS study (Craig,
Mullan & Blaxland 2010) fathers contributed 20 hours per week childcare while mothers
contributed 45 hours per week in families with the youngest child 0-4 years. Therefore,
mothers are more likely to spend time in their local communities than fathers.
Although 32.9% of respondents were born overseas, which is comparable to 31.2% of West
Australians (ABS 2012a), only 10.9% spoke another language other than English in the home
compared to 20.4% of Australian households (ABS 2012a). Other demographic variations
included: 74.8% owned their owned home compared to 67% of Australian families with young
children (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012b); 94.3% had a partner compared to 78% of
202
Australian families with children (Weston, Qu & Baxter 2013). Overall, the respondents were
mainly mothers, and more representative of English speaking backgrounds, with partners, and
more likely to have home ownership than the national averages for these characteristics.
Therefore, a limitation is that the findings may not reflect the experiences of those from more
diverse or more disadvantaged backgrounds; groups that have been found to be difficult to
reach Winkworth et al. 2010b).
10.7.3 Construct measurement
Survey development and analyses
A strength of the study was the opportunity to explore qualitatively the experiences and
concerns of families with young children, which guided, along with current literature, the
development of the survey instrument.
A further strength was the content validity and feedback provided by peers, which included a
pilot survey undertaken within the university and a test and retest of new items. This involved
the development of a new scale to measure parent’s perceptions of available social support
from outside the home (PSOHS), which was tested and retested in the pilot for reliability.
While the Intraclass Correlation coefficients (ICC) between the test and retest for the PSOH
were all in moderate agreement with one in good agreement (Section 7.5.1), it was
disappointing that there were not more ICCs in good agreement which would indicate that the
PSOHS was stronger in measuring social support for parents from outside the home. One
possible explanation is that the support parents need to draw on from outside the home may
vary according to the challenges of parenting young children; for example, sickness of a child
or parent, or behavioural issues may flag greater support needs from outside the home.
However, the factor analysis of the PSOHS in the main survey (Section 8.3.2) indicated good
inter-item correlations and all items had a strong loading onto one of two factors: 1)
information, emotional and companionship support, and 2) instrumental support, which
indicated that the PSOHS measured what it was designed to.
10.8 OVERALL THESIS CONCLUSION
10.8.1 Contribution to knowledge
This study has contributed knowledge through the following areas:
1. A qualitative exploration of how families with young children (aged 0-5 years) build social
capital and feel supported and connected within newer residential areas and the role of
203
groups such as mothers’ groups and playgroups in supporting this process. A conceptual social
capital framework suitable for families with young children was proposed. This is the first
study to the knowledge of the author, to explore the relationship between participation in
local community groups, such as mothers’ groups and playgroups, with ‘connectedness’ to the
local community for families with children aged 0-5 years.
2. A quantitative investigation of the associations between participation in mothers’ groups
and playgroups with measures for social capital, social support and mental well-being during
the preschool years. A scale to measure support from outside the home (PSOHS) was
developed and tested. This is the first study to the knowledge of the author to have
investigated quantitatively these associations for families with children aged 0-5 years.
3. An integration of the qualitative and quantitative findings support the pivotal role of
mothers’ groups and playgroups in supporting and connecting families with young children
within their local communities.
10.8.2 Implications for policy and practice
This study has implications for those who work with families with children aged 0-5 years, in
particular, for child health nurses or professionals from other agencies who work with parents
with infants. The mothers’ group subgroup quantitative analysis showed strong associations
between mothers’ group participation and social support, social capital and mental well-being
compared to non- participation, which supported the qualitative findings. However, the
qualitative findings also found that child health services were often limited in capacity to
include in local mothers’ groups those that were second time mothers or who had relocated.
This resulted in some of the relocated mothers feeling isolated until other new networks were
found. With increasing family mobility and relocation this is an area of need that is likely to
grow. The role and scope of child health and partner agencies within local communities needs
to be strengthened to develop strategies to meet this need, so mothers with infants have
opportunities to join mothers’ groups.
Other agencies and staff in early childhood roles in local government need to be supported to
develop strategies and opportunities for families to meet other families with young children in
their local communities. Evaluations of facilitated mothers’ groups (Guest & Keatinge 2009;
Kruske et al. 2004), supported playgroups (Mills et al. 2012; Jackson 2011a), pram walking
groups (Matthey & Barnett 2005) and other early childhood programs such as those that use
peer mentoring (Shan et al. 2012) consistently identify building a supportive social network as
an objective and potential benefit for families. The KidsFirst program (Shan et al. 2012) in
204
Canada, which used peer mentors, enabled community connections for disadvantaged
mothers of children aged 0-5 years, who otherwise would often have been isolated from their
broader community. In Australia, two promising interventions: Program of Resources,
Information and Support for Mothers (PRISM) and MOtherS’ Advocates In the Community
(MOSAIC) have been trialled, which have both had some success at improving social support
for the mothers involved (Small, Taft & Brown 2011). However, for PRISM, while qualitative
feedback was positive there was no quantifiable effect from pre to post intervention on
friendships forged (Small, Taft & Brown 2011) nor mental or physical health measures (Lumley
et al. 2006). The evidence from these evaluations and the findings from this study suggest
strongly that the provision of participation opportunities for families with young children to
meet other parents is the key – and then families will often connect with others and support is
then fostered.
While not measured specifically in the quantitative phase, the lag of physical and social
infrastructure referred to by parents in the qualitative phase (Chapter 5, manuscript 1) clearly
illustrates the importance of the built environment in providing opportunities for residents to
interact with others in the local community, either through incidental encounters at shopping
hubs to organised opportunities in groups at community hubs such as playgroups. Mothers’
groups need somewhere to meet once the facilitated sessions are finished, and while some
groups go to each other’s homes this is not always suitable and other venues are needed –
such as community centres, coffee shops and suitable parks with weather protection. There
needs to be careful planning in newer residential areas to ensure the timely development of
the built environment that supports families with young children. Connecting new residents,
who are often families with young children, through opportunities to interact with each other,
needs to be a ‘must do’ priority of planners, developers, local government and child and family
services.
The policy and practice points in this section align with the views of several authors working in
child and family community health and early childhood education who advocate for creating
more supportive environments in our communities (McMurray 2007; Moore 2006; 2008; Sims
2009). Moore (2008) and Sims (2009) advocate for universal strategies and programs for
families with young children, that are inclusive, and help to build supportive networks that
expand the circle of care and attachment for children (Sims 2009) and provide opportunities to
learn parenting from other parents (Moore 2008). Viewed through an evolutionary
perspective, Hrdy (2011) contends that mothers’ needing others (alloparents) is our ancient
heritage and critical for mothers and infants to thrive. In the changing landscape of family life
we need to focus on creating and supporting opportunities for all families with young children
205
to meet others in their local communities.
10.8.3 Implications for further research
There are four main areas recommended for further research.
Firstly, further research is needed on the potential mental well-being benefits from the use of
information and communication technologies (ICTs) by parents with young children. ICT is
omnipresent and is continually increasing in applications in everyday life (Dekker & Engbersen
2013). During the qualitative data collection parents commonly talked about their use of
Facebook to communicate with family, friends and mothers’ group and playgroup members, as
well as the use of parenting information and forum sites to find information and to contribute
to forums. The main survey data included information on frequency of digital communication
use, and reasons for use of Facebook and parenting websites. With increasing migration and
mobility, such websites may be critical in helping families to keep in touch with family and
supportive networks. While beyond the scope of this thesis, the data collected will be
analysed in the future.
Secondly, as illustrated in Chapter 5 (Manuscript 1) new parenthood appears to brings with it a
desire to connect locally due to an increased need for support and invested interest in the
community. The main survey data included information on perceptions of the local community
since becoming a parent. This area needs more investigation to help to elucidate the key social
and physical factors that are important to parents. While beyond the scope of this thesis, the
data collected will be analysed in the future. It may be helpful for planners working in local
government to have an identified priority list of the ‘must haves’ in ‘family friendly’ local
communities.
Thirdly, the impact of employment on mental well-being for mothers is worthy of more
research. The findings in this study suggest there may be a transition for mothers once the
oldest child starts school where employment may have a stronger influence on mental well-
being. With increasing employment trends for mothers, as well as changes in Australian
government policy that has reduced family support benefits to encourage single parents to
return to the workforce once the youngest child is eight years of age (Grahame & Marston
2012), a better understanding of the relationship between employment and mental well-being
for mothers is needed.
Fourthly, a longitudinal study on mothers/parents and their social networks which included
participation in such groups as mothers’ groups and playgroups for parents would provide
206
stronger evidence. While there is the LSAC study (Zubrick et al. 2008), which has measured
child outcomes and some parent outcomes, it would be worthwhile to have a longitudinal
study with a strong focus on the social and mental well-being of parents over the course of
parenting children up to 18 years of age.
10.8.4 Conclusion
Participation is the key. The findings within this thesis support the proposition that
participation in local communities, through groups such as mothers’ groups and playgroups are
a vital and potentially critical means of building social capital for families with young children.
Proposed associations between social capital, social support and mental well-being are
supported by the findings. The mixed methods design has enabled a broader and richer
understanding of the lives of families in local communities, in particular, in newer residential
areas in Perth, Western Australia. The experiences of family relocation and building new
supportive social networks appear to be universal. These findings are important for policy
makers and practitioners in maternal and child health, early childhood care and education,
urban planning and local government. In the changing landscape of family life we need to do
our best to ensure that families with young children are connected and supported in their local
communities.
207
REFERENCES
Abbott, S 2010, 'Social capital and health: The role of participation', Social Theory & Health,
vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 51-65. doi:10.1057/sth.2009.19
Abbott, S & Freeth, D 2008, 'Social capital and health: Starting to make sense of the role of
generalised trust and reciprocity', Journal of Health Psychology, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 874-
883. doi:10.1177/1359105308095060
Aday, LA & Cornelius, LJ 2011, Designing and conducting health surveys: a comprehensive
guide, 3rd edn, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
Allen, PJ & Bennett, K 2010, PASW Statistics by SPSS: A Practical Guide: Version 18.0, Cengage
Learning South Melbourne, Australia.
Altschuler, A, Somkin, CP & Adler, NE 2004, 'Local services and amenities, neighborhood social
capital, and health', Social Science & Medicine, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 1219-1229. doi:
10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.01.008
Andrews, FJ, Rich, S, Stockdale, R & Shelley, J 2014, 'Parents׳ experiences of raising pre-school
aged children in an outer-Melbourne growth corridor', Health & Place, vol. 27, pp. 220-
228. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.02.013
Antonsich, M 2010, 'Searching for Belonging – An Analytical Framework', Geography Compass,
vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 644-659. doi:10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00317.x
Armstrong, H 2004, 'Making the Unfamiliar Familiar: Research Journeys towards
Understanding Migration and Place', Landscape Research, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 237-260.
doi:10.1080/0142639042000248906
Arthurson, K, Baum, F & Ziersch, A 2014, 'Exploring Social Capital: as Concept and Practice in
Australian Public Health Policies and Programs', Australian Journal of Public
Administration, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 79-87. doi: 10.1111/1467-8500.12056
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2004, Information paper: Measuring Social Capital - An
Australian Framework, cat.no.1378.0, ABS, Canberra, Available from:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/1378.02004
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2009a, Australian Social Trends December 2009: Living
Alone, cat.no.4102.0, ABS, Canberra. Available from:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features20Dec+2009
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2009b, Housing Occupancy and Costs, 2007-08,
cat.no.4130.0, ABS, Canberra. Available from:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/4130.0Main+Features12007-
08?OpenDocument
208
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2010a, Australian Social Trends June 2010: Child care,
cat.no.4102.0, ABS, Canberra. Available from:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features50Jun+2010
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2010b, Australian Social Trends September 2010: Older
people and the labour market, cat.no.4102.0, ABS, Canberra. Available at:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features30Sep+2010
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2010c, General social survey: Summary results,
cat.no.4159, ABS, Canberra. Available at:
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/D0B6CB77DE0BF677CA2579
1A00824C41/$File/41590_2010.pdf
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2012a, Census for a brighter future, ABS, Canberra.
Available from:
http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/census?opendocument&na
vpos=10
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2012b, 2012 Year Book Australia, cat.no.1301, ABS,
Canberra. Available from: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/1301.0
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2013, Housing Occupancy and Costs, 2011-12,
cat.no.4130.0, ABS, Canberra. Available from:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Latestproducts/4130.0Main%20Features220
11-12?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4130.0&issue=2011-
12&num=&view=#
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2014a, 'Australian Social Trends, 2014', cat.no.4102.0,
ABS, Canberra. Available from:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/4102.0main+features102014#
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2014b, Household Use of Information Technology,
Australia, cat.no.8146.0, ABS, Canberra. Available from:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/8146.0Chapter12012-13#
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2014c, Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2012-13,
cat.no.3218.0, ABS, Canberra. Available from:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Latestproducts/3218.0Main%20Features820
12-13?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3218.0&issue=2012-
13&num=&view=#PARALINK3
Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) 1996, The Australian Life Course Survey, AIFS,
Commonwealth of Australia, Melbourne.
Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) 2006, Growing up in Australia: The Longitudinal
Study of Australian Children 2005-2006 Report, Department of Families Housing
Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Australian Institute of Family Studies,
Melbourne. Available from:
http://www.aifs.gov.au/growingup/pubs/ar/ar200506/annualreport2005-06.pdf
209
Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) 2009, Growing up in Australia: The Longitudinal
Study of Australian Children 2008-09 Annual Report, Department of Families,
Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Australian Institute of Family Studies,
Melbourne. Available from:
http://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/lsac_ar_08-09.pdf
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2009, A picture of Australia's children 2009,
cat.no.PHE112, AIHW, Canberra. Available from:
http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/phe-112-10704/phe-112-10704.pdf
Baker, D 2012, All the lonely people: Loneliness in Australia, 2001-2009, The Australia Institute.
Available from:
https://www.tai.org.au/index.php?q=node%2F19&pubid=1015&act=display
Balaji, AB, Claussen, AH, Smith, DC, Visser, SN, Morales, MJ & Perou, R 2007, 'Social support
networks and maternal mental health and well-being', Journal of Women's Health, vol.
16, no. 10, pp. 1386-1396. doi:10.1089/jwh.2007.CDC10.
Barclay, L, Everitt, L, Rogan, F, Schmied, V & Wyllie, A 1997, 'Becoming a mother - an analysis
of women's experience of early motherhood', Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 25, no.
4, pp. 719 - 728. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.t01-1-1997025719.x
Barnes, M, Pratt, J, Finlayson, K, Courtney, M, Pitt, B & Knight, C 2008, 'Learning about baby:
What new mothers would like to know', The Journal of Perinatal Education, vol. 17, no.
3, pp. 33-41. doi: 10.1624/105812408X329584
Barnes, MI, Pratt, J, Finlayson, K, Pitt, B & Knight, C 2010, 'The First Steps Program: a case study
of a new model of community child health service', Australian Health Review, vol. 34,
pp. 386-389. doi: 10.1071/AH09762
Bartholomew, MK, Schoppe‐Sullivan, SJ, Glassman, M, Kamp Dush, CM & Sullivan, JM 2012,
'New Parents' Facebook Use at the Transition to Parenthood', Family Relations, vol. 61,
no. 3, pp. 455-469. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00708.x
Baum, F, Bush, R, Modra, C, Murray, C, Palmer, C & Potter, R 1999, Building healthy
communities: health development and social capital project - western suburbs of
Adelaide, 0730890406, South Australian Community Health Research Unit, Flinders
Medical Centre, Bedford Park, SA.
Baum, F & Palmer, C 2002, '‘Opportunity structures’: urban landscape, social capital and health
promotion in Australia', Health Promotion International, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 351-361. doi:
10.1093/heapro/17.4.351
Baum, F, Palmer, C, Modra, C, Murray, C & Bush, R 2000, 'Families, social capital and health', in
Social Capital and Public Policy in Australia, ed. IC Winter, Australian Insititute of Family
Studies, Commonwealth of Australia, Melbourne, pp.250-273.
210
Baum, F, Putland, C, MacDougall, C & Ziersch, A 2011, 'Differing Levels of Social Capital and
Mental Health in Suburban Communities in Australia: Did Social Planning Contribute to
the Difference?', Urban Policy and Research, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 37 - 57. doi:
10.1080/08111146.2010.542607
Baum, FE, Ziersch, AM, Zhang, G & Osborne, K 2009, 'Do perceived neighbourhood cohesion
and safety contribute to neighbourhood differences in health?', Health & Place, vol. 15,
no. 4, pp. 925-934. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.02.013
Baxter, J 2013a, Child care participation and maternal employment trends in Australia:
Research Report No.26, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Commonwealth of
Australia, Melbourne. Available from:
http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/aifs_childcareparticipationandmaternalemploymenttr
endsinaustralia_dec_2013.pdf
Baxter, J 2013b, Families working together: Getting the balance right, Australian Institute of
Family Studies, Commonwealth of Australia, Melbourne. Available from:
http://aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm2013/fm92/fm92.pdf#page=79
Baxter, J 2013c, Parents working out work, vol. Australian Family Trends No.1, Australian
Institute of Family Studies, Commonwealth of Australia, Melbourne. Available from:
https://www.nesa.com.au/media/50416/130423_australian%20institute%20of%20famil
y%20studies_australian%20family%20trends%20report%20no.%201%20-
%20parents%20working%20out%20work.pdf
Bech, P, Olsen, LR, Kjoller, M & Rasmussen, NK 2003, 'Measuring well‐being rather than the
absence of distress symptoms: a comparison of the SF‐36 Mental Health subscale and
the WHO‐Five well‐being scale', International journal of methods in psychiatric research,
vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 85-91. doi: 10.1002/mpr.145
Bellefeuille, G 2005, Visions of Community: A Seventh Moment Critical Phenomenological
Study, thesis, University of Victoria, Canada. Available from:
http://dspace.library.uvic.ca:8080/handle/1828/761
Berkman, L & Glass, T 2000, 'Social Integration, Social Networks, Social Support, and Health.',
in Social Epidemiology, eds L Berkman & I Kawachi, Oxford University Press, New York,
pp. 137-173.
Berry, H & Shipley, M 2009, Longing to belong : personal social capital and psychological
distress in an Australian coastal region, Social Policy Research Paper No.39, Dept. of
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Canberra. Available from:
http://melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/hilda/Bibliography/Working_Discussion_Res
earch_Papers/2009/Berry_etal_Longing_to_Belong.pdf
Berry, HL & Welsh, JA 2010, 'Social capital and health in Australia: An overview from the
household, income and labour dynamics in Australia survey', Social Science & Medicine,
vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 588-596. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.012
211
Berthelsen, DC, Williams, KE, Abad, V, Vogel, L & Nicholson, J, The parents at playgroup
research report: engaging families in supported playgroups. Available from:
<http://eprints.qut.edu.au/50875/1/Parents_at_Playgroup_Final_Report.pdf>.
Bianchi, SM & Milkie, MA 2010, 'Work and Family Research in the First Decade of the 21st
Century', Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 705-725. doi:
10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00726.x
Bicchieri, C & Chavez, A 2010, 'Behaving as expected: Public information and fairness norms',
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 161-178. doi: 10.1002/bdm.648
Boneham, MA & Sixsmith, JA 2006, 'The voices of older women in a disadvantaged community:
Issues of health and social capital', Social Science & Medicine, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 269-279.
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.06.003
Borrow, S, Munns, A & Henderson, S 2011, 'Community-based child health nurses: An
exploration of current practice', Contemporary Nurse: A Journal for the Australian
Nursing Profession, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 71-86. doi: 10.5172/conu.2011.40.1.71
Bourdieu, P 1986, 'The Forms of Capital', in handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology
of Education, ed. J Richardson, Greenwood, New York, pp. 241-258.
Bowes, J, Watson, J & Pearson, E 2009, 'Families as a context for children', in Children, Families
& Communities: Contexts and consequences, 3rd edn, eds J bowes & R Grace, Oxford
University Press, Melbourne, pp. 91-110.
Bowling, A 2005, 'Just one question: If one question works, why ask several?', Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 342-345. doi:
10.1136/jech.2004.021204
Bramley, G & Power, S 2009, 'Urban form and social sustainability: the role of density and
housing type', Environment and planning B: Planning & design, vol. 36, no. 1, p. 30. doi:
10.1068/b33129
Brinkmann, S & Kvale, S 2005, 'Confronting the ethics of qualitative research', Journal of
constructivist psychology, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 157-181. doi: 10.1080/10720530590914789
Bronfenbrenner, U 1977, 'Toward an experimental ecology of human development', American
Psychologist, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 513-531. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
Bronfenbrenner, U 1993, 'Ecological Models of Human Development', in Readings on the
development of children, 2nd edn, ed. M Gauvain & M Cole, Freeman, New York, pp. 37-
43.
Buckner, JC 1988, 'The development of an instrument to measure neighbourhood cohesion',
American Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 771-791. doi:
10.1007/BF00930892
212
Buehler, C & O'Brien, M 2011, 'Mothers' part-time employment: associations with mother and
family well-being', Journal of Family Psychology, vol. 25, no. 6, p. 895. doi:
10.1037/a0025993
Bullen, P 2004, Connecting the Community: A social capital and community development
research project of the Warnervale district community, Wyong Shire Council & Uniting
Care Burnside, NSW.
Capaldi, DM, Knoble, NB, Shortt, JW & Kim, HK 2012, 'A Systematic Review of Risk Factors for
Intimate Partner Violence', Partner abuse, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 231-280. doi:
10.1891%2F1946-6560.3.2.231
Carpiano, RM 2006, 'Toward a neighborhood resource-based theory of social capital for health:
Can Bourdieu and sociology help?', Social Science & Medicine, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 165-
175. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.05.020
Carpiano, RM 2008, 'Actual or potential neighborhood resources and access to them: Testing
hypotheses of social capital for the health of female caregivers', Social Science &
Medicine, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 568-582. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.04.017
Carpiano, RM & Fitterer, LM 2014, 'Questions of trust in health research on social capital:
What aspects of personal network social capital do they measure?', Social Science &
Medicine, vol. 116, pp. 225-234. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.017
Carpiano, RM & Hystad, PW 2011, '“Sense of community belonging” in health surveys: What
social capital is it measuring?', Health & Place, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 606-617. doi:
10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.12.018
Carpiano, RM & Kimbro, RT 2012, 'Neighborhood social capital, parenting strain, and personal
mastery among female primary caregivers of children', Journal of health and social
behavior, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 232-247. doi: 10.1177/0022146512445899
Carter, K, Hayward, M & Richardson, K 2008, 'SoFIE Health Baseline Report: Study design and
associations of social factors and health in Waves 1 to 3', SoFIE-health report, Report 2.
Available from: http://www.otago.ac.nz/wellington/otago020416.pdf
Castles, S, Hugo, G & Vasta, E 2013, 'Rethinking Migration and Diversity in Australia:
Introduction', Journal of Intercultural Studies, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 115-121. doi:
10.1080/07256868.2013.781915
Cattell, V, Dines, N, Gesler, W & Curtis, S 2008, 'Mingling, observing, and lingering: Everyday
public spaces and their implications for well-being and social relations', Health &
Place, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 544-561. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2007.10.007
Caughy, MOB, O’Campo, PJ & Muntaner, C 2003, 'When being alone might be better:
neighborhood poverty, social capital, and child mental health', Social Science &
Medicine, vol. 57, no. 2, p. 227. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00342-8
213
Cheng, H & Furnham, A 2014, 'The associations between parental socio-economic conditions,
childhood intelligence, adult personality traits, social status and mental well-being',
Social Indicators Research, vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 653-664. DOI 10.1007/s11205-013-0364-1
Chipuer, HM & Pretty, GMH 1999, 'A review of the sense of community index: Current uses,
factor structure, reliability, and further development', Journal of Community Psychology,
vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 643-658. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1520-6629(199911)27:6<643::aid-
jcop2>3.0.co;2-b
Claibourn, MP & Martin, PS 2000, 'TRUSTING AND JOINING? An Empirical Test of the
Reciprocal Nature of Social Capital', Political Behavior, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 267-291. doi:
10.1023/a:1010688913148
Clark, WA 2013, 'Life course events and residential change: unpacking age effects on the
probability of moving', Journal of Population Research, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 319-334. doi:
10.1007/s12546-013-9116-y
Clark, WA & Huang, Y 2003, 'The life course and residential mobility in British housing markets',
Environment and Planning A, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 323-340. doi:10.1068/a3542
Cohen, J 1992, 'A power primer', Psychological bulletin, vol. 112, no. 1, p. 155. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Cohen, S, Underwood, L & Gottlieb, BH 2000, Social support measurement and intervention: A
guide for health and social scientists, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Colclough, G & Sitaraman, B 2005, 'Community and Social Capital: What Is the Difference?',
Sociological Inquiry, vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 474-496. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682x.2005.00133.x
Coleman, JS 1988, 'Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital', The American Journal of
Sociology, vol. 94, pp. S95-S120. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780243
Commission on Social Determinants of Health 2008, Closing the gap in a generation: health
equity through action on the social determinants of health: final report of the
commission on social determinants of health, World Health Organisation. Available from:
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2008/WHO_IER_CSDH_08.1_eng.pdf?ua=1
Corcoran, MP, Gray, J & Peillon, M 2008, 'Ties that Bind? The Social Fabric of Daily Life in New
Suburbs’, in Quality of Life in Ireland, Social indicators research series vol. 32, eds T
Fahey, H Russell & CT Whelan, Springer, Netherlands, pp. 175-197. doi: 10.1007/978-1-
4020-6981-9_11
Cornwell, EY & Waite, LJ 2009, 'Social Disconnectedness, Perceived Isolation, and Health
among Older Adults', Journal of Health & Social Behavior, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 31-48. doi:
doi: 10.1177/002214650905000103
Couper, MP 2011, 'The future of modes of data collection', Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 75,
no. 5, pp. 889-908. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfr046
214
Coverdale, G 2012, 'Ready, willing and able? Specialist community public health nurses’ views
of their public health role', Journal of Research in Nursing, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 47-63. doi:
10.1177/1744987110379786
Craig, L, Mullan, K & Blaxland, M 2010, 'Parenthood, policy and work-family time in Australia
1992—2006', Work, employment & society, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 27-45. doi:
10.1177/0950017009353778
Creswell, JW 2007, Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches,
2nd edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Creswell, JW 2009, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches,
3rd edn, Sage Publications, Incorporated.
Creswell, JW 2011, 'Controversies in mixed methods research', in The Sage Handbook of
Qualitative Research, eds NK Denzin & YS Lincoln, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp.269-283.
Creswell, JW 2013, Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches,
3rd edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Cronbach, LJ 1951, 'Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests', Psychometrika, vol.
16, no. 3, pp. 297-334. doi: 10.1007/bf02310555
Curley, AM 2010, 'Relocating the poor: Social capital and neighborhood resources', Journal of
Urban Affairs, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 79-103. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9906.2009.00475.x
Curtis, LJ, Dooley, MD & Phipps, SA 2004, 'Child well-being and neighbourhood quality:
evidence from the Canadian National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth', Social
Science & Medicine, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 1917-1927. doi:
10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.08.007
Dahl, T, Ceballo, R & Huerta, M 2010, 'In the eye of the beholder: mothers' perceptions of poor
neighborhoods as places to raise children', Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 38, no.
4, pp. 419-434. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20372
Davis, E & Posselt, H 2009, 'Measuring Social Capital: New developments in the Australian
Bureau of Statistics', in Social capital and social justice: Critical Australian perspectives,
eds G Woolcock & L Manderson, Charles Darwin University Press, Darwin, pp. 21-44.
Dawson, B & Trapp, RG 2004, Basic & clinical biostatistics, Lange Medical Books/McGraw-Hill,
New York .
De silva, M 2006, 'Systematic review of the methods used in studies of social capital and
mental health', in Social Capital and Mental Health, eds K McKenzie & T Harpham,
Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London, pp. 39-67.
De Silva, MJ, McKenzie, K, Harpham, T & Huttly, SRA 2005, 'Social capital and mental illness: a
systematic review', Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 619-
627. doi:10.1136/jech.2004.029678
215
Deave, T, Johnson, D & Ingram, J 2008, 'Transition to parenthood: the needs of parents in
pregnancy and early parenthood', BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 30. doi:
10.1186/1471-2393-8-30
Dekker, R & Engbersen, G 2013, 'How social media transform migrant networks and facilitate
migration', Global Networks, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 401-418. doi: 10.1111/glob.12040
Denzin, NK & Lincoln, YS 2011, 'Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative
Research', in The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, eds NK Denzin & YS Lincoln,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1-20.
DeVellis, RF 2011, Scale development: Theory and applications, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
DiCicco‐Bloom, B & Crabtree, BF 2006, 'The qualitative research interview', Medical education, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 314-321. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x
Dillman, DA 2000, Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method, Wiley, New York.
Dowling, M 2007, 'From Husserl to van Manen. A review of different phenomenological
approaches', International Journal of Nursing Studies, vol. 44, no. 1, p. 131.
doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2005.11.026
Eastwood, J, Jalaludin, B, Kemp, L, Phung, H, Barnett, B & Tobin, J 2013, 'Social exclusion, infant
behavior, social isolation, and maternal expectations independently predict maternal
depressive symptoms', Brain and behavior, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 14-23.
doi: 10.1002/brb3.107
Edgar, D 2001, The Patchwork Nation: re-thinking government- re-building community, Harper
Collins, Sydney.
Edwards, B 2005, 'Does it take a village? an investigation of neighbourhood effects on
Australian children's development', Family Matters, no. 72, pp. 36-43. Available at:
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19989550&site=eho
st-live
Edwards, B 2006, 'Views of the village: Parents' perceptions of their Neighbourhoods', Family
Matters, no. 74, pp. 26-33. Available at:
http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=284673942095945;res=IELHSS
Edwards, B & Bromfield, LM 2010, 'Neighbourhood influences on young children’s emotional
and behavioural problems', Family Matters, no. 84, pp. 7-19. Available at:
http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=991746562556188;res=IELFSC
Eicher, C & Kawachi, I 2011, 'Social capital and community design', in Making Healthy Places,
eds AL Dannenberg, H Frumkin & RJ Jackson, Springer, washington, DC, pp. 117-128.
216
Ellaway, A, Macintyre, S & Kearns, A 2001, 'Perceptions of Place and Health in Socially
Contrasting Neighbourhoods', Urban Studies, vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 2299-2316. doi:
10.1080/00420980120087171
Elton Consulting 2012a, Community Infrastructure for Growth Areas: Technical Report,
National Growth Areas Alliance, (NGAA). Sydney. Available from:
http://ngaa.org.au/media/803/ngaa_technical_report_final.pdf
Elton Consulting 2012b, Tomorrow's healthy and productive communities: The case for
community infrastructure in outer metropolitan growth areas, National Growth Areas
Alliance. Available from:
http://ngaa.org.au/media/806/ngaa_report_tomorrows_healthy_and_productive_com
munities_november_2012.pdf
Eriksson, M, Dahlgren, L & Emmelin, M 2009, 'Understanding the role of social capital for
health promotion beyond Putnam: A qualitative case study from northern Sweden',
Social Theory & Health, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 318-338. doi: 10.1057/sth.2009.6
Eriksson, U, Hochwälder, J, Carlsund, Å & Sellström, E 2012, 'Health outcomes among Swedish
children: the role of social capital in the family, school and neighbourhood', Acta
Paediatrica, vol. 101, no. 5, pp. 513-517. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2011.02579.x
Fagan, C & Norman, H 2012, 'Trends and social divisions in maternal employment patterns
following maternity leave in the UK', International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy,
vol. 32, no. 9/10, pp. 544-560. doi: 10.1108/01443331211257643
Fegan, M & Bowes, J 2009, 'Isolation in Rural, Remote and Urban Communities', in Children,
Families & Communities: Contexts and Consequences, 3rd edn, eds J Bowes & R Grace,
Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp. 129-143.
Ferguson, KM 2006, 'Social capital and children's wellbeing: a critical synthesis of the
international social capital literature', International Journal of Social Welfare, vol. 15, no.
1, pp. 2-18. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2397.2006.00575.x
Field, J 2008, Social Capital, 2nd edn, Routledge, London.
Fielden, JM & Gallagher, LM 2008, 'Building social capital in first-time parents through a group-
parenting program: A questionnaire survey', International Journal of Nursing Studies,
vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 406-417. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.09.008
Finfgeld-Connett, D 2005, 'Clarification of social support', Journal of Nursing Scholarship, vol.
37, no. 1, pp. 4-9. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2005.00004.x.
Finlay, L 2009, 'Debating phenomenological research methods', Phenomenology & Practice,
vol. 3, no. 1. Available from:
https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/pandpr/article/viewFile/19818/15336
217
Folland, S 2007, 'Does "community social capital" contribute to population health?', Social
Science & Medicine, vol. 64, no. 11, pp. 2342-2354. doi:
10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.003
Francis, J, Giles-Corti, B, Wood, L & Knuiman, M 2012a, 'Creating sense of community: The role
of public space', Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 401-409.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.07.002
Francis, J, Wood, LJ, Knuiman, M & Giles-Corti, B 2012b, 'Quality or quantity? Exploring the
relationship between Public Open Space attributes and mental health in Perth, Western
Australia', Social Science & Medicine, vol. 74, no. 10, pp. 1570-1577. doi:
10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.01.032
Freiberg, K, Homel, R, Batchelor, S, Carr, A, Hay, I, Teague, R & Lamb, C 2005, 'Creating
pathways to participation: a community-based developmental prevention project in
Australia', Children & Society, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 144-157. doi: 10.1002/chi.867
Fukuyama, F 2001, 'Social capital, civil society and development', Third world quarterly, vol. 22,
no. 1, pp. 7-20. doi: 10.1080/713701144
Funnell, S & Rogers, P 2008, Evaluation of the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy
2000-2004 : early intervention and early childhood initiatives, Collaborative Institute for
Research, Consulting and Learning in Evaluation, RMIT University, Melbourne. Available
at: http://mams.rmit.edu.au/224c8dm24lm5.pdf
Gadamer, H-G 2004, Truth and Method, 2nd edn, Continuum, New York.
Giles-Corti, B, Knuiman, M, Timperio, A, Van Niel, K, Pikora, TJ, Bull, FC, Shilton, T & Bulsara, M
2008, 'Evaluation of the implementation of a state government community design policy
aimed at increasing local walking: design issues and baseline results from RESIDE, Perth
Western Australia', Preventive medicine, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 46-54.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.08.002
Giordano, GN, Björk, J & Lindström, M 2012, 'Social capital and self-rated health–a study of
temporal (causal) relationships', Social Science & Medicine, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 340-348.
doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.011
Giordano, GN & Lindström, M 2010, 'The impact of social capital on changes in smoking
behaviour: a longitudinal cohort study', The European Journal of Public Health, p.
ckq048. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckq048
Giordano, GN, Merlo, J, Ohlsson, H, Rosvall, M & Lindström, M 2013, 'Testing the association
between social capital and health over time: a family-based design', BMC Public Health,
vol. 13, no. 1, p. 665. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-665
218
Giordano, GN, Ohlsson, H & Lindström, M 2011, 'Social capital and health—Purely a question
of context?', Health & Place, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 946-953.
doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.04.004
Giorgi, A 1997, 'The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a
qualitative research', Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, vol. 28, no. 2, p. 235.
Available from:
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=67720&site=ehost-
live
Gittell, R & Vidal, A 1998, Community Organizing: Building Social Capital as a Development
Strategy, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Gjerdingen, D, McGovern, P, Attanasio, L, Johnson, PJ & Kozhimannil, KB 2014, 'Maternal
depressive symptoms, employment, and social support', The Journal of the American
Board of Family Medicine, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 87-96. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2014.01.130126
Gjesfjeld, CD, Greeno, CG & Kim, KH 2008, 'A confirmatory factor analysis of an abbreviated
social support instrument: The MOS-SSS', Research on Social Work Practice, vol. 18, no.
3, pp. 231-237. doi: 10.1177/1049731507309830
Glaeser, EL, Laibson, DI, Scheinkman, JA & Soutter, cL 2000, 'Measuring Trust', The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, vol. 115, no. 3, pp. 811-846. doi: 10.1162/003355300554926
Grahame, T & Marston, G 2012, 'Welfare-to-work policies and the experience of employed
single mothers on income support in Australia: where are the benefits?', Australian
Social Work, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 73-86. doi: 10.1080/0312407X.2011.604093
Gray, C & Sims, M 2007, 'Parental stress and child rearing decisions', New Zealand Research in
Early Childhood Education, vol. 10, p. 105-118. Available from:
http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=378988356414819;res=IELNZC
Green, A, Cohen, L & Pooley, JA 2006, 'In search of community in Western Australia: A
qualitative study of adults conceptualisations of their communities', The Australian
Community Psychologist, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 58-70. Available from:
http://www.groups.psychology.org.au/GroupContent.aspx?ID=4393#Volume18No2
Greene, JC & Caracelli, VJ 1997, 'Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed‐method
evaluation', New directions for evaluation, Special Issue: Advances in Mixed-Method
Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms no. 74, pp. 5-
17. doi: 10.1002/ev.1068
Guba, EG & Lincoln, YS 1998, 'Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research', in The Landscape
of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues, eds NK Denzin & YS Lincoln, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks CA, pp. 195-220.
219
Guest, EM & Keatinge, DR 2009, 'The Value of New Parent Groups in Child and Family Health
Nursing', The Journal of Perinatal Education, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 12-22. doi:
10.1624/105812409X461180
Gwyther, L & Woolcock, G 2009, 'Social Capital and the Master Planned Community: Theory
and Practice', in Social capital and social justice : Critical Australian perspectives eds G
Woolcock & L Manderson, Charles Darwin University Press, Darwin, pp. 169-182.
Halpern, D 2005, Social Capital, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Hancock, K, Lawrence, D, Mitrou, F, Zarb, D, Berthelsen, D, Nicholson, JM & Zubrick, SR 2012,
'The association between playgroup participation, learning competence and social-
emotional wellbeing for children aged 4-5 years in Australia', Australasian Journal of
Early Childhood, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 72-81. Available at:
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/45901/1/45901.pdf
Hanibuchi, T, Kondo, K, Nakaya, T, Shirai, K, Hirai, H & Kawachi, I 2012, 'Does walkable mean
sociable? Neighborhood determinants of social capital among older adults in Japan',
Health & Place, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 229-239. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.09.015
Hanna, BA, Edgecombe, G, Jackson, CA & Newman, S 2002, 'The importance of first-time
parent groups for new parents', Nursing & Health Sciences, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 209-214.
doi: 10.1046/j.1442-2018.2002.00128.x
Harpham, T 2008, 'The Measurement of Community Social Capital Through Surveys', in Social
Capital and Health, eds I Kawachi, SV Subramanian & D Kim, Springer New York, pp. 51-
62.
Harpham, T, Grant, E & Snoxell, S 2006, 'Social capital and youth mental health in Cali,
Colombia', in Social capital and mental health, eds K McKenzie & T Harpham, Jessica
Kingsley Publishers, London, pp.138-148.
Harpham, T, Grant, E & Thomas, E 2002, 'Measuring social capital within health surveys: key
issues', Health Policy & Planning, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 106-111.
Hawe, P & Shiell, A 2000, 'Social capital and health promotion: a review', Social Science &
Medicine, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 871-885. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(00)00067-8
Hawe, P, Webster, C & Shiell, A 2004, 'A glossary of terms for navigating the field of social
network analysis', Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, vol. 58, no. 12, pp.
971-975. doi: 10.1136/jech.2003.014530
Hayes, A, Qu, L, Weston, R & Baxter, J 2011, Families in Australia 2011: Sticking together in
good and tough times, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Australian Government,
Melbourne. Available from:
http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/factssheets/2011/fw2011/fw2011.pdf
220
Hayes, A, Weston, R, Qu, L & Gray, M 2010, Families Then and Now, 1980-2010, Australian
Institute of Family Studies. Available from:
http://aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/factssheets/fs2010conf/fs2010conf.html
Hazelhurst, D 2003, 'Family and work: issues and risks across the life course', in Sydney:
University of New South Wales, paper for the Australian Social Policy Conference, 9 -11
July. Available from: http://www2.sprc.unsw.edu.au/ASPC2003/papers/Paper228.pdf
Heenan, D 2010, 'Social capital and older people in farming communities', Journal of Aging
Studies, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 40-46. doi: 10.1016/j.jaging.2008.09.002
Helliwell, JF 2007, 'Well-Being And Social Capital: Does Suicide Pose A Puzzle?', Social
Indicators Research, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 455-496. Doi: 10.1007/s11205-006-0022-y
Hesse-Biber, S & Johnson, RB 2013, 'Coming at Things Differently Future Directions of Possible
Engagement With Mixed Methods Research', Journal of Mixed Methods Research, vol. 7,
no. 2, pp. 103-109. doi: 10.1177/1558689813483987
Hiller, B, Melotte, B & Hiller, S 2013, 'Uncontrolled Sprawl or Managed Growth? An Australian
Case Study', Leadership and Management in Engineering, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 144-170.
doi: 10.1061/(asce)lm.1943-5630.0000238
Hjälmhult, E, Glavin, K, Økland, T & Tveiten, S 2014, 'Parental groups during the child's first
year: an interview study of parents' experiences', Journal of Clinical Nursing, vol. 23, no.
19-20, pp. 2980-2989. doi: 10.1111/jocn.12528
Holmes, D, Hughes, K & Julian, R 2012, 'Australian sociology: A changing society', Pearson
Australia, Malaysia.
Holt-Lunstad, J, Smith, TB & Layton, JB 2010, 'Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-
analytic Review', PLoS Medicine, vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 1-20. doi:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316
House, JS, Umberson, D & Landis, KR 1988, 'Sructures and Processes of Social Support', Annual
Review of Sociology, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 293-318. Available from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083320
Hrdy, SB 2011, Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding, The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Hugo, G, Harris, K, Bell, M, Spoehr, J & Coffee, N 2000, '’Bringing them back home’ factors
influencing interstate migration to and from South Australia', Migration, vol. 1991, p. 96.
Available from: http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/128776/sub034-
labour-mobility-attachment.pdf
221
Jackson, D 2009, A Place to be: The role of supported playgroups in creating responsive, social
spaces for parent and child wellbeing, thesis, University of Western Sydney, Sydney.
Available from:
http://www.connect.asn.au/info%5CA_place_to_'be'_Dianne_Jackson_PhD_thesis_200
9_(2).pdf
Jackson, D 2011a, 'What is really happening for parents and children in supported
playgroups?', Every Child, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 32 -33. Available from:
http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=688371785586827;res=IELHSS
Jackson, D 2011b, 'What’s really going on? Parents’ views of parent support in three Australian
supported playgroups', Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 29-37.
Available from:
http://search.informit.com.au/fullText;dn=755003290340489;res=IELHSS
Jackson, D 2013, 'Creating a place to ‘be’: unpacking the facilitation role in three supported
playgroups in Australia', European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, vol. 21,
no. 1, pp. 77-93. doi:10.1080/1350293x.2012.760345
Jackson, R, Jatrana, S, Johnson, L, Kilpatrick, S & King, T 2013, 'Everybody has settled in so well':
How migrants make connections and build social capital in Geelong, Alfred Deakin
Research Institute, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria.
Jones, C, Burns, S, Howat, P, Jancey, J, McManus, A & Carter, O 2010, 'Playgroups as a setting
for nutrition and physical activity interventions for mothers with young children:
exploratory qualitative findings', Health Promotion Journal of Australia, vol. 21, no. 2,
pp. 92-98. doi: 10.1071/he10092
Jones, R, Heim, D, Hunter, S & Ellaway, A 2014, 'The relative influence of neighbourhood
incivilities, cognitive social capital, club membership and individual characteristics on
positive mental health', Health & Place, vol. 28, pp. 187-193.
doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.04.006
Kai, J 1996, 'What worries parents when their preschool children are acutely ill, and why: a
qualitative study', BMJ, vol. 313, no. 7063, pp. 983-986. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7063.983
Karnieli-Miller, O, Strier, R & Pessach, L 2009, 'Power relations in qualitative research',
Qualitative Health Research, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 279-289. doi:
10.1177/1049732308329306
Kawachi, I 1999, 'Social Capital and Community Effects on Population and Individual Health',
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 896, no. 1, pp. 120-130. doi:
10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08110.x
Kawachi, I, Kennedy, BP, Lochner, K & Prothrow-Stith, D 1997, 'Social capital, income
inequality, and mortality', American Journal of Public Health, vol. 87, no. 9, pp. 1491-
1498. doi: 10.2105/ajph.87.9.1491
222
Kawachi, I, Kim, D, Coutts, A & Subramanian, S 2004, 'Commentary: Reconciling the three
accounts of social capital', International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 682-
690. Doi: 10.1093/ije/dyh177
Kawachi, I, Subramanian, SV & Kim, D 2008, 'Social Capital and Health: A decade of progress
and beyond', in Social Capital and Health, eds I Kawachi, SV Subramanian & D Kim,
Springer New York, pp. 1-26.
Kearney, L & Fulbrook, P 2012, 'Open-access community child health clinics: The everyday
experience of parents and child health nurses', Journal of Child Health Care, vol. 16, no.
1, pp. 5-14. doi: 10.1177/1367493511419874
Keene, D, Bader, M & Ailshire, J 2013, 'Length of residence and social integration: The
contingent effects of neighborhood poverty', Health & Place, vol. 21, pp. 171-178. Doi:
10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.02.002
Keleher, H & MacDougall, C 2009, 'Understanding the Determinants of Health', in
Understanding Health A Determinants Approach, 2nd edn, eds H Keleher & C
Macdougall, Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Kennedy School of Government Harvard University 2001, The Social Capital Community
Benchmark Survey. Available from:
<http://www.hks.harvard.edu/saguaro/communitysurvey/faqs.html>.
Kent, JL & Thompson, S 2014, 'The Three Domains of Urban Planning for Health and Well-
Being', Journal of Planning Literature, p. 0885412214520712. doi:
10.1177/0885412214520712
Kesler, C & Bloemraad, I 2010, 'Does immigration erode social capital? The conditional effects
of immigration-generated diversity on trust, membership, and participation across 19
countries, 1981–2000', Canadian Journal of Political Science, vol. 43, no. 02, pp. 319-347.
doi: 10.1017/s0008423910000077
Kessler, RC, Andrews, G, Colpe, LJ, Hiripi, E, Mroczek, DK, Normand, SLT, Walters, EE &
Zaslavsky, AM 2002, 'Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and
trends in non-specific psychological distress', Psychological medicine, vol. 32, no. 6, pp.
959-976. doi:10.1017/s0033291702006074
Kirkby‐Geddes, E, King, N & Bravington, A 2013, 'Social capital and community group
participation: Examining ‘bridging’and ‘bonding’in the context of a healthy living centre
in the UK', Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 271-
285. doi: 10.1002/casp.2118
Kreuter, M, Young, L & Lezin, N 1998, Measuring Social Capital in Small Communities., Atlanta
and St Louis University School of Public Health.
223
Kritsotakis, G, Vassilaki, M, Melaki, V, Georgiou, V, Philalithis, AE, Bitsios, P, Kogevinas, M,
Chatzi, L & Koutis, A 2013, 'Social capital in pregnancy and postpartum depressive
symptoms: A prospective mother–child cohort study (the Rhea study)', International
Journal of Nursing Studies, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 63-72. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.08.012
Kruske, S, Schmied, V, Sutton, I & O'Hare, J 2004, 'Mothers' Experiences of Facilitated Peer
Support Groups and Individual Child Health Nursing Support: A comparative evaluation',
The Journal of Perinatal Education, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 31-38. doi:
10.1624/105812404x1752
Kuhn, TS 2012, The structure of scientific revolutions, 4th edn, University of Chicago press,
Chicago.
Kulu, H & Milewski, N 2008, 'Family change and migration in the life course: An introduction–',
Demographic Research, vol. 17, pp. 567-590. Available from: http://www.demographic-
research.org/volumes/vol17/19/17-19.pdf
Kvale, S & Brinkmann, S 2008, Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research
interviewing, 2nd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.
Leahy-Warren, P 2005, 'First-time mothers: social support and confidence in infant care',
Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 479-488. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2648.2005.03425.x
Leahy-Warren, P, McCarthy, G & Corcoran, P 2011, 'Postnatal Depression in First-Time
Mothers: Prevalence and Relationships Between Functional and Structural Social
Support at 6 and 12 Weeks Postpartum', Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, vol. 25, no. 3,
pp.174-184. doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2010.08.005
Leahy-Warren, P, McCarthy, G & Corcoran, P 2012, 'First-time mothers: social support,
maternal parental self-efficacy and postnatal depression', Journal of Clinical Nursing, vol.
21, no. 3-4, pp. 388-397. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03701.x
Leigh, A 2006, 'Trust, Inequality and Ethnic Heterogeneity', Economic Record, vol. 82, no. 258,
pp. 268-280. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4932.2006.00339.x
Leigh, A 2010, Disconnected, University of New South Wales, Sydney.
Leventhal, T & Brooks-Gunn, J 2000, 'The neighborhoods they live in: the effects of
neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes', Psychological bulletin, vol.
126, no. 2, p. 309. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.309
Levine-Rasky, C 2009, 'Dynamics of parent involvement at a multicultural school', British
Journal of Sociology of Education, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 331-344. doi:
10.1080/01425690902812604
224
Lewicka, M 2011, 'Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years?', Journal of
Environmental Psychology, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 207-230. doi:
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001
Leyden, KM 2003, 'Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable
Neighborhoods', American Journal of Public Health, vol. 93, no. 9, pp. 1546-1551. Doi:
10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1546
Li, J, McMurray, A & Stanley, F 2008, 'Modernity's paradox and the structural determinants of
child health and well-being', Health Sociology Review, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 64-77. Available
from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/203157736?accountid=14681
Liamputtong, P 2006, 'Motherhood and “Moral Career”: Discourses of Good Motherhood
Among Southeast Asian Immigrant Women in Australia', Qualitative Sociology, vol. 29,
no. 1, pp. 25-53. doi: 10.1007/s11133-005-9006-5
Lin, N 2000, 'Inequality in Social Capital', Contemporary Sociology, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 785-795.
Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2654086
Lincoln, YS & Guba, EG 1986, 'But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic
evaluation', New directions for program evaluation, vol. 1986, no. 30, pp. 73-84.
doi: 10.1002/ev.1427
Lincoln, YS, Lynham, SA & Guba, EG 2011, 'Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and
Emergin Confluences, Revisited', in The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, eds NK
Denzin & YS Lincoln, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, pp. 97-128.
Lindström, M 2004, 'Social capital, the miniaturisation of community and self-reported global
and psychological health', Social Science & Medicine, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 595-607.
doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.11.006
Lindström, M 2011, 'Social capital, desire to increase physical activity and leisure-time physical
activity: A population-based study', Public Health, vol. 125, no. 7, pp. 442-447.
doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2011.01.015
Lindström, M 2014, 'Does social capital include trust? Commentary on', Social Science &
Medicine, vol. 116, no. 0, pp. 235-236. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.04.028
Lindström, M, Ali, SM & Rosvall, M 2012, 'Socioeconomic status, labour market connection,
and self-rated psychological health: The role of social capital and economic stress',
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 51-60. doi:
10.1177/1403494811421825
Lindström, M, Merlo, J & Östergren, P-O 2002, 'Individual and neighbourhood determinants of
social participation and social capital: a multilevel analysis of the city of Malmö,
Sweden', Social Science & Medicine, vol. 54, no. 12, pp. 1779-1791. doi: 10.1016/s0277-
9536(01)00147-2
225
Lloyd, K & Devine, P 2012, 'Psychometric properties of the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-
being scale (WEMWBS) in Northern Ireland', Journal of Mental Health, vol. 21, no. 3, pp.
257-263. doi:10.3109/09638237.2012.670883
Lochner, K, Kawachi, I & Kennedy, B 1999, 'Social Capital: a guide to its measurement.', Health
& Place, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 259-270. doi: 10.1016/s1353-8292(99)00016-7
Lomas, J 1998, 'Social capital and health: Implications for public health and epidemiology',
Social Science & Medicine, vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 1181-1188. doi: 10.1016/s0277-
9536(98)00190-7
Lumley, J, Watson, L, Small, R, Brown, S, Mitchell, C & Gunn, J 2006, 'PRISM (Program of
Resources, Information and Support for Mothers): a community-randomised trial to
reduce depression and improve women's physical health six months after birth ', BMC
Public Health, vol. 6, pp. 37-14. dio: 10.1186/1471-2458-6-37
Lund, H 2002, 'Pedestrian Environments and Sense of Community', Journal of Planning
Education and Research, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 301-312. dio: 10.1177/0739456x0202100307
Lyberg, LE, Biemer, P, Collins, M, De Leeuw, ED, Dippo, C, Schwarz, N & Trewin, D 2012, Survey
measurement and process quality, vol. 999, John Wiley & Sons.
Macintyre, S & Ellaway, A 2000, 'Ecological approaches:rediscovering the role of the physical
and social environment', in Social Epidemiology, eds L Berkman & I Kawachi, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 332-347.
Mackay, H 1999, Turning Point, Macmillan Publishers, Sydney.
Mackay, H 2009, What makes us tick - the 10 desires that drive us, Hatchett Australia, Sydney.
Mackay, H 2014, The Art of Belonging, Macmillan Publishers, Sydney.
Madge, C & O'Connor, H 2006, 'Parenting gone wired: empowerment of new mothers on the
internet?', Social & Cultural Geography, vol. 7, no. 02, pp. 199-220. doi:
10.1080/14649360600600528
Magdol, L 2000, 'The people you know: The impact of residential mobility on mothers' social
network ties', Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 183-204.
doi: 10.1177/0265407500172002
Magdol, L & Bessel, DR 2003, 'Social capital, social currency, and portable assets: The impact of
residential mobility on exchanges of social support', Personal Relationships, vol. 10, no.
2, pp. 149-169. doi: 10.1111/1475-6811.00043
Manturuk, K, Lindblad, M & Quercia, R 2010, 'Friends and neighbors: homeownership and
social capital among low‐to moderate‐income families', Journal of Urban Affairs, vol. 32,
no. 4, pp. 471-488. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9906.2010.00494.x
226
Marmot, M 2005, 'Social determinants of health inequalities', The Lancet, vol. 365, no. 9464,
pp. 1099-1104. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)71146-6
Marmot, M & Bell, R 2012, 'Fair society, healthy lives', Public Health, vol. 126, pp. S4-S10.
doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2012.05.014
Matthey, S 2011, 'Assessing the experience of motherhood: The Being a Mother Scale (BaM-
13)', Journal of Affective Disorders, vol. 128, no. 1–2, pp. 142-152. doi:
10.1016/j.jad.2010.06.032
Matthey, S & Barnett, B 2005, 'Evaluation of a Community Networking Initiative for Parents
with Infants', International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 23-29.
doi: 10.1080/14623730.2005.9721957
McKenzie, K & Harpham, T 2006, 'Meanings and uses of social capital in the mental health
field', in Social Capital and Mental Health, eds K McKenzie & T Harpham, Jessica Kingsley
Publishers, London, pp. 11-23.
McMillan, DW & Chavis, DM 1986, 'Sense of community: A definition and theory', Journal of
Community Psychology, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 6-23. doi: 10.1002/1520-
6629(198601)14:1<6::aid-jcop2290140103>3.0.co;2-i
McMurray, A 2007, Community Health and Wellness: a socio-ecological approach, 3rd edn,
Mosby Elsevier, Sydney.
McPherson, KE, Kerr, S, McGee, E, Morgan, A, Cheater, FM, McLean, J & Egan, J 2014, 'The
association between social capital and mental health and behavioural problems in
children and adolescents: an integrative systematic review', BMC Psychology, vol. 2, no.
7, pp.1-16. doi:10.1186/2050-7283-2-7
Mee, K & Wright, S 2009, 'Geographies of belonging', Environment and Planning A, vol. 41, no.
4, pp. 772-779. Available from: http://www.envplan.com/epa/editorials/a41364.pdf
Mensah, FK & Kiernan, KE 2010, 'Maternal general health and children's cognitive
development and behaviour in the early years: findings from the Millennium Cohort
Study', Child Care Health and Development,, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 44-54. doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2214.2010.01150.x
Mertens, DM 2012, 'What Comes First? The Paradigm or the Approach?', Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 255-257. doi: 10.1177/1558689812461574
Miller, L 2003, 'Belonging to country — a philosophical anthropology', Journal of Australian
Studies, vol. 27, no. 76, pp. 215-223. doi: 10.1080/14443050309387839
Mills, A, Schmied, V, Taylor, C, Dahlen, H, Shuiringa, W & Hudson, ME 2012, 'Someone to talk
to: young mothers’ experiences of participating in a young parents support programme',
Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, pp. 551-559. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-
6712.2012.01065.x
227
Mistry, R, Stevens, GD, Sareen, H, De Vogli, R & Halfon, N 2007, 'Parenting-related stressors
and self-reported mental health of mothers with young children', American Journal of
Public Health, vol. 97, no. 7, pp. 1261-1268. doi: 10.2105%2fajph.2006.088161
Modra, C, Baum, F, Cooke, R, Murray, C, Bush, R & Cox, E 1998, 'Exploring social capital—levels
of participation, trust and health in a suburban region of Adelaide, South Australia', in
30th Annual Public Health Association Conference.
Mohnen, SM, Völker, B, Flap, H, Subramanian, S & Groenewegen, PP 2013, 'You have to be
there to enjoy it? Neighbourhood social capital and health', The European Journal of
Public Health, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 33-39. doi:10.1093/eurpub/cks039
Molitor, F, Rossi, M, Branton, L & Field, J 2011, 'Increasing social capital and personal efficacy
through small-scale community events', Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 39, no. 6,
pp. 749-754. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20452
Moore, T 2005, 'Towards improved support for families of young children: The role of
communities', 9th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference. Available from:
http://www.aifs.gov.au/conferences/aifs9/moore1.pdf
Moore, T 2006, 'Creating the conditions to support positive child development and family
functioning: The role of the built environment', Creating Child-Friendly Cities 2nd
National Conference. Available from:
http://www.aracy.org.au/publicationDocuments/TOP_Creating_the_conditions_to_sup
port_positive_child_development_and_family_functioning_The_role_of_the_built_envi
ronment_20006.pdf
Moore, T 2008, Supporting young children and their families: Why we need to rethink services
and policies, Centre for Community Child Health,, Parkeville, Victoria. Available from:
http://www.rch.org.au/emplibrary/ccch/Need_for_change_working_paper.pdf
Morgan, DL 2004, 'Focus Groups', in Approaches to Qualitative Research, eds S Hesse-Biber & P
Leavy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 263-285.
Morgan, DL 2007, 'Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained methodological implications of
combining qualitative and quantitative methods', Journal of Mixed Methods Research,
vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 48-76. doi: 10.1177/2345678906292462
Moustakas, C 1994, Phenomenological research methods, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks,
California.
Mulcahy, CM, Parry, DC & Glover, TD 2010, 'Play-group politics: a critical social capital
exploration of exclusion and conformity in mothers groups', Leisure Studies, vol. 29, no.
1, pp. 3-27. doi: 10.1080/02614360903266973
Mulvaney, C & Kendrick, D 2005, 'Depressive symptoms in mothers of pre-school children',
Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 202-208. doi:
10.1007/s00127-005-0859-4
228
National Health and Medical Research Council 2007, Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human
Research. Chapter 3.1 Qualitative Methods, pp. 25-28. Available from:
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/e72.pdf
Nelson, AM 2003, 'Transition to Motherhood', Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal
Nursing, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 465-477. doi: 10.1177/0884217503255199
Nieminen, T, Martelin, T, Koskinen, S, Aro, H, Alanen, E & Hyyppä, M 2010a, 'Social capital as a
determinant of self-rated health and psychological well-being', International journal of
public health, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 531-542. doi: 10.1007/s00038-010-0138-3
Nieminen, T, Martelin, T, Koskinen, S, Prattala, R, Alanen, E & Hyyppa, MT 2010b, 'P31 Social
capital and health behaviour', Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, vol.
64(Suppl_1) Supplement, no. 1, pp. A45-A46. doi:10.1136/jech.2010.120477.31
Nyström, K & Öhrling, K 2004, 'Parenthood experiences during the child's first year: literature
review', Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 319-330. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2648.2004.02991.x
Obst, P, Smith, SG & Zinkiewicz, L 2002, 'An exploration of sense of community, Part 3:
Dimensions and predictors of psychological sense of community in geographical
communities', Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 119-133. doi:
10.1002/jcop.1054
Oldenburg, R 1999, The Great Good Place, 2nd edn, Da Capo Press, Philadelphia.
Onyx, J & Bullen, P 2000, 'Measuring Social Capital in Five Communities', The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 23-42. doi: 10.1177/0021886300361002
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development Factbook 2013. Available from: http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/economics/oecd-factbook-2013_factbook-2013-n;jsessionid=1t8bkifafttup.x-
oecd-live-01
Pallant, J 2011, SPSS Survival Manual, 4th Edition edn, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
Panelli, R & Welch, R 2005, 'Why community? Reading difference and singularity with
community', Environment and Planning A, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 1589-1611.
doi:10.1068/a37257
Parr, N 2007, 'Which women stop at one child in Australia?', Journal of Population Research,
vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 207-225. Available from:
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/578/art%253A10.1007%252FBF03031931.pdf
?auth66=1422442319_3bcb31f4d8f86293bac38e90f145e35c&ext=.pdf
Patton, MQ 2001, Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd edn, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks.
229
Piper, SM 2011, 'Community empowerment for health visiting and other public health nursing',
Community Practitioner, vol. 84, no. 8, pp. 28-31. Available from:
http://search.proquest.com/docview/882901840?accountid=14681
Pocock, B 2005, 'Mothers: The more things change, the more they stay the same', in Family:
Changing families, changing times, ed. M Poole, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, pp. 113-134.
Poole, M 2005, 'Changing families, changing times', in Family: Changing families, changing
times, ed. M Poole, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, pp. 1-19.
Pooley, JA, Cohen, L & Pike, LT 2005, 'Can sense of community inform social capital?', Social
Science Journal, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 71-79. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2004.11.006
Poortinga, W, Dunstan, FD & Fone, DL 2007, 'Perceptions of the neighbourhood environment
and self rated health: a multilevel analysis of the Caerphilly Health and Social Needs
Study', BMC Public Health, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 285. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-7-285
Portes, A 1998, 'Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology', Annual
Review of Sociology, vol. 24, no.1, pp.1-24. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1
Powell, K 2005, 'The effect of adult playcentre participation on the creation of social capital in
local communities', Wellington: New Zealand Playcentre Federation. Available from:
http://playcentre.org.nz/researchdocs/16.pdf
Putnam, RD 1993, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton
University Press, New Jersey.
Putnam, RD 1995a, 'Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital', Journal of Democracy,
vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 65-78. Available from:
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_democracy/v006/6.1putnam.html
Putnam, RD 1995b, 'Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in
America', PS: Political Science and Politics, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 664-683. doi:
10.2307/420517
Putnam, RD 2000, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon and
Schuster, New York.
Putnam, RD 2007, 'E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century The
2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture', Scandinavian Political Studies, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 137-
174. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x
Qu, L, Baxter, J, Weston, R, Moloney, L & Hayes, A 2012, Family-related life events: insights
from two Australian longitudinal studies, AIoF Studies, Australian Government,
Melbourne. Available from:
http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/resreport22/index.html
Qualtrics 2005, Qualtrics software, eds 2009, Qualtrics, p. Survey software. Available at:
http://qualtrics.com
230
Ramsden, R & Taket, A 2013, 'Social capital and Somali families in Australia', Journal of
international migration and integration, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 99-117. doi: 10.1007/s12134-
011-0226-0
Ravanera, Z 2007, 'Informal Networks Social Capital of Fathers: What Does the Social
Engagement Survey Tell Us?', Social Indicators Research, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 351-373. doi:
10.1007/s11205-006-9053-7
Reese, L 2012, 'Creative class or procreative class: Implications for local economic
development policy', Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, vol.
7, no. 1, pp. 5-26. Available from: http://um.ase.ro/no71/1.pdf
Reese, L 2014, 'The Present and Future of Urban Affairs Research', Journal of Urban Affairs,
vol. 36, no. s2, pp. 543-550. doi: 10.1111/juaf.12143
Robinson, D & Wilkinson, D 1995, 'Sense of community in a remote mining town: Validating a
neighborhood cohesion scale', American Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 23, no.
1, pp. 137-148. doi: 10.1007/bf02506926
Robinson, M, Oddy, WH, Jianghong, L, Kendall, GE, de Klerk, NH, Silburn, SR, Zubrick, SR,
Newnham, JP, Stanley, FJ & Mattes, E 2008, 'Pre and postnatal influences on preschool
mental health: a large-scale cohort study', Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, vol.
49, no. 10, pp. 1118-1128. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01955.x
Rousseau, DM, Sitkin, SB, Burt, RS & Camerer, C 1998, 'Not so different after all: A cross-
discipline view of trust', Academy of management review, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 393-404.
doi: 10.5465/AMR.1998.926617
Rubin, HJ & Rubin, IS 2012, Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, 3rd edn, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
Saggers, S & Sims, M 2005, 'Diversity: Beyond the nuclear family', in Family: Changing families,
changing times, ed. M Poole, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, pp. 66-87.
Saguaro Seminar, The Social Capital Community Benchmark, John F.Kennedy School of
Government, Harvard University. Available from:
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/data/datasets/social_capital_commun
ity_survey.html
Sandelowski, M 2000, 'Whatever happened to qualitative description?', Research in Nursing &
Health, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 334-340. doi: 10.1002/1098-240x(200008)23:4<334::aid-
nur9>3.0.co;2-g
Sandelowski, M 2010, 'What's in a name? Qualitative description revisited', Research in
Nursing & Health, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 77-84. doi: 10.1002/nur.20362
231
Sanson, A & Stanley, F 2010, 'Improving the wellbeing of Australian children and youth: the
importance of bridging the know–do gap', in Bridging the ‘Know–Do’Gap: Knowledge
brokering to improve child wellbeing, eds G Bammer, A Michaux & A Sanson, ANU E
Press, Canberra, pp. 3-17.
Sarason, IG & Sarason, BR 1990, 'Social support: The search for theory', Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 133-147. doi: 10.1521/jscp.1990.9.1.133
Sarason, IG & Sarason, BR 2009, 'Social support: Mapping the construct', Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 113-120. doi: 10.1177/0265407509105526
Sarason, SB 1974, The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a community
psychology, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Schmied, V, Fowler, C, Rossiter, C, Homer, C & Kruske, S 2014, 'Nature and frequency of
services provided by child and family health nurses in Australia: results of a national
survey', Australian Health Review, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 177-185. doi:10.1071/ah13195
Schmied, V, Homer, C, Kemp, L, Thomas, C, Fowler, C & Kruske, S 2008, Literature Review: The
role and nature of universal health services for pregnant women, children and families in
Australia, University of Western Sydney, Sydney. Available from:
http://www.aracy.org.au/cmsdocuments/Towards_seamless_services_literature_review
Schutz, A 1970, 'Interactional Relationships', in Alfred Schutz on Phenomenology and Social
Relations, ed. H Wagner, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Scott, D, Brady, S & Glynn, P 2001, 'New mother groups as a social network intervention:
consumer and maternal and child health nurse perspectives', Australian Journal of
Advanced Nursing, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 23-29. Available from:
http://www.ajan.com.au/Vol18/Vol18.4-3.pdf
Seaman, P & Sweeting, H 2004, 'Assisting Young People's Access to Social Capital in
Contemporary Families: A Qualitative Study', Journal of Youth Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, pp.
173-190. doi:10.1080/1367626042000238703
Shan, H, Muhajarine, N, Loptson, K & Jeffery, B 2012, 'Building social capital as a pathway to
success: community development practices of an early childhood intervention program
in Canada', Health Promotion International, pp. 1-12. doi: 10.1093/heapro/das063
Shaw, E, Levitt, C, Wong, S, Kaczorowski, J & The McMaster University Postpartum Research, G
2006, 'Systematic Review of the Literature on Postpartum Care: Effectiveness of
Postpartum Support to Improve Maternal Parenting, Mental Health, Quality of Life, and
Physical Health', Birth, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 210-220. doi:10.1111/j.1523-
536x.2006.00106.x
Sherbourne, CD & Stewart, AL 1991, 'The MOS social support survey', Social Science &
Medicine, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 705-714. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90150-b
232
Sims, M 2009, 'Neurobiology and child development: Challenging current interpretation and
policy implications', Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 36-42.
Available from: http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/our-
publications/australasian-journal-early-childhood/ajec-archive/2009-issues/ajec-vol-34-
1-march-2009/
Small, R, Taft, AJ & Brown, SJ 2011, 'The power of social connection and support in improving
health: lessons from social support interventions with childbearing women', BMC Public
Health, vol. 11, no. (suppl 5):S4, pp. 1-11. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-s5-s4
Sneddon, J & Haynes, K 2003, Early Intervention Parenting Project: Improving access to
playgroups for all families project, Centre for Community Child Health at Royal children's
Hospital Melbourne. Available from:
http://www.playgroup.org.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/Research/Early%2
0Intervention%20Parenting%20Project%20Report.pdf
Solar, O & Irwin, A 2010, A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of
health, World Health Organisation, Geneva. Available from:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44489/1/9789241500852_eng.pdf?ua=1
Stanley, J, Stanley, J & Hensher, D 2012, 'Mobility, Social Capital and Sense of Community:
What Value?', Urban Studies. doi: 10.1177/0042098012447002
Stephens, C 2008, 'Social capital in its place: Using social theory to understand social capital
and inequalities in health', Social Science & Medicine, vol. 66, pp. 1174-1184. doi:
10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.11.026
Stern, MJ & Fullerton, AS 2009, 'The Network Structure of Local and Extra-Local Voluntary
Participation: The Role of Core Social Networks', Social Science Quarterly, vol. 90, no. 3,
pp. 553-575. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00631.x
Stewart, AL, Hays, RD & Ware, JE 1988, 'The MOS short-form general health survey: reliability
and validity in a patient population', Medical care, pp. 724-735. Available from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3765494.pdf?acceptTC=true
Stone, W 2001, Measuring Social Capital: Towards a theoretically informed measurement
framework for researching social capital in family and community life, Research paper
no. 24. Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne. Available from:
http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/RP24.html
Stone, W & Hughes, J 2000, 'What role for social capital in family policy?', Family Matters, no.
56, pp. 20-27. Available from:
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=3906237&site=ehost-
live
Stone, W & Hughes, J 2002, Families, Social Capital and Citizenship Survey, Australian Institute
of Family Studies, Australian Government, Melbourne. Available from:
http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/rp27/
233
Strange, C, Fisher, C, Howat, P & Wood, L 2014a, 'Fostering supportive community connections
through mothers' groups and playgroups', Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 70, no. 12,
pp. 2835-2846. doi: 10.1111/jan.12435
Strange, C, Fisher, C, Howat, P & Wood, L 2014b, 'The essence of being connected: the lived
experience of mothers with young children in newer residential areas', Community,
Work & Family, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 486-502. doi:10.1080/13668803.2014.935704
Subramanian, S, Kim, D & Kawachi, I 2002, 'Social trust and self-rated health in US
communities: a multilevel analysis', Journal of Urban Health, vol. 79, no. 0, pp. S21-S34.
doi: 10.1093/jurban/79.suppl_1.s21
Svendsen, G 2006, 'Studying social capital in situ: A qualitative approach', Theory and Society,
vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 39-70. doi: 10.1007/s11186-006-6780-3
Sweet, S, Swisher, R & Moen, P 2005, 'Selecting and Assessing the Family-Friendly Community:
Adaptive Strategies of Middle-Class, Dual-Earner Couples', Family Relations, vol. 54, no.
5, pp. 596-606. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2005.00344.x
Swisher, R, Sweet, S & Moen, P 2004, 'The Family-Friendly Community and Its Life Course Fit
for Dual-Earner Couples', Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 281-292.
doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00020.x
Szreter, S & Woolcock, M 2004, 'Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the
political economy of public health', International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 33, no. 4,
pp. 650-667. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyh013
Taft, AJ, Small, R, Hegarty, KL, Watson, LF, Gold, L & Lumley, JA 2011, 'Mothers' Advocates In
the Community (MOSAIC)-non-professional mentor support to reduce intimate partner
violence and depression in mothers: a cluster randomised trial in primary care', BMC
Public Health, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 178. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-178
Tanner, L 2003, Crowded Lives, Pluto Press Australia, Melbourne.
Tashakkori, A & Creswell, JW 2007, 'Editorial: The new era of mixed methods', Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3-7. doi: 10.1177/2345678906293042
Teddlie, C & Tashakkori, A 2011, 'Mixed Methods Research: Contemporary Issues in and
Emerging Field', in The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th edn, eds NK Denzin
& YS Lincoln, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.
Tennant, R, Hiller, L, Fishwick, R, Platt, S, Joseph, S, Weich, S, Parkinson, J, Secker, J & Stewart-
Brown, S 2007, 'The Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS):
development and UK validation', BMC Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, vol. 5, no. 1,
p. 63. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-5-63
Thomas, JR & Nelson, JK 2001, Research Methods in Physical Activity, Fourth edn, Human
Kinetics, Champaign, IL.
234
Tomlinson, R (ed.) 2012, Australia's Unintended Cities: The Impact of Housing on Urban
Development, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.
Tracy, SJ 2010, 'Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research',
Qualitative inquiry, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 837-851. doi: 10.1177/1077800410383121
Tunstall, H, Cabieses, B & Shaw, R 2012, 'The characteristics of mobile families with young
children in England and the impact of their moves on neighbourhood inequalities in
maternal and child health', Health & Place, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 657-670.
doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.11.009
Tunstall, H, Pickett, K & Johnsen, S 2010, 'Residential mobility in the UK during pregnancy and
infancy: Are pregnant women, new mothers and infants ‘unhealthy migrants’?', Social
Science & Medicine, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 786-798. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.04.013
Turner, DW 2010, 'Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice investigators', The
qualitative report, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 754-760. Available from:
http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol15/iss3/19
van Manen, M 1990, Researching Lived Experience: Human science for an action sensitive
pedagogy, The State University of New York Press, London, Ontario.
Van Oorschot, W, Arts, W & Gelissen, J 2006, 'Social Capital in Europe: Measurement and
social and regional distribution of a multifaceted phenomenon', Acta Sociologica, vol.
49, no. 2, pp. 149-167. doi: 10.1177/0001699306064770
Vesely, CK, Ewaida, M & Kearney, KB 2013, 'Capital izing on Early Childhood Education: Low-
Income Immigrant Mothers’ Use of Early Childhood Education to Build Human, Social,
and Navigational Capital', Early Education & Development, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 744-765.
doi:10.1080/10409289.2012.725382
Vimpani, G 2001, 'The role of social cohesiveness in promoting optimum child development',
Youth Suicide Prevention Bulletin, vol. 5, pp. 20-24. Available from:
http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/ysp/bulletin5.pdf
Viry, G 2012, 'Residential mobility and the spatial dispersion of personal networks: Effects on
social support', Social Networks, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 59-72.
doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2011.07.003
Wagner, HR 1970, 'Introduction: the phenomenological approach to sociology', in Alfred Schutz
on Phenomenology and Social Relations: selected writings, ed. H Wagner, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 1-34.
Wakefield, SEL & Poland, B 2005, 'Family, friend or foe? Critical reflections on the relevance
and role of social capital in health promotion and community development', Social
Science & Medicine, vol. 60, no. 12, pp. 2819-2832. doi:0.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.012
235
Wakkee, M, Hollestein, LM & Tamar, N 2014, 'Multivariable Analysis', Journal Investigative
Dermatololgy, vol. 134, no. 5, p. e20. doi: 10.1038/jid.2014.132
Walker, C 2012, 'The Information World of Parents: A Study of the Use and Understanding of
Information by Parents of Young Children', Library Trends, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 546-568.
doi: 10.1353/lib.2012.0000
Warner, ME & Rukus, J 2013, 'Planners’ Role in Creating Family-Friendly Communities: Action,
Participation and Resistance', Journal of Urban Affairs, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 627-644.
doi:10.1111/juaf.12014
Weich, S, Brugha, T, King, M, McManus, S, Bebbington, P, Jenkins, R, Cooper, C, McBride, O &
Stewart-Brown, S 2011, 'Mental well-being and mental illness: findings from the Adult
Psychiatric Morbidity Survey for England 2007', The British Journal of Psychiatry, vol.
199, no. 1, pp. 23-28. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.111.091496
Weston, R, Qu, L & Baxter, J 2013, Australian families with children and adolescents,
Australian Institute of Family Studies, Commonwealth of Australia, Melbourne. Available
from: http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/factssheets/2013/familytrends/aft5/
Whittemore, R, Chase, SK & Mandle, CL 2001, 'Validity in qualitative research', Qualitative
Health Research, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 522-537. doi: 10.1177/104973201129119299
Wilkinson, RG & Marmot, MG (eds) 2003, Social determinants of health: the solid facts, World
Health Organization, Geneva. Available from:
http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/108082
Williams, P & Pocock, B 2010, 'Building ‘community’ for different stages of life: physical and
social infrastructure in master planned communities', Community, Work & Family, vol.
13, no. 1, pp. 71-87. doi: 10.1080/13668800902903300
Winkworth, G, McArthur, M, Layton, M & Thompson, L 2010a, 'Someone to check in on me:
social capital, social support and vulnerable parents with very young children in the
Australian Capital Territory', Child & Family Social Work, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 206-215. doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2206.2009.00660.x
Winkworth, G, McArthur, M, Layton, M, Thomson, L & Wilson, F 2010b, 'Opportunities Lost--
Why Some Parents of Young Children Are Not Well-Connected to the Service Systems
Designed to Assist Them', Australian Social Work, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 431-444. doi:
10.1080/0312407x.2010.508170
Witten, K, Kearns, R, McCreanor, T, Penney, L & Faalau, F 2009, 'Connecting place and the
everyday practices of parenting: Insights from Auckland, New Zealand', Environment and
Planning A, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 2893-2910. doi:10.1068/a41377
Witten, K, McCreanor, T & Kearns, R 2003, 'The place of neighbourhood in social cohesion:
insights from Massey, West Auckland', Urban Policy and Research, vol. 21, no. 4, pp.
321-338. doi:10.1080/0811114032000147386
236
Wood, L, Frank, LD & Giles-Corti, B 2010, 'Sense of community and its relationship with walking
and neighborhood design', Social Science & Medicine, vol. 70, no. 9, pp. 1381-1390. doi:
10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.021
Wood, L & Giles-Corti, B 2008, 'Is there a place for social capital in the psychology of health
and place?', Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 154-163. doi:
10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.11.003
Wood, L, Giles-Corti, B & Bulsara, M 2012, 'Streets Apart: Does Social Capital Vary with
Neighbourhood Design?', Urban Studies Research, vol. 2012, pp.1-11 doi:
10.1155/2012/507503
Wood, L, Giles-Corti, B, Zubrick, SR & Bulsara, MK 2013, '“Through the Kids . . . We Connected
With Our Community”: Children as Catalysts of Social Capital', Environment and
Behavior, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 344-368. doi:10.1177/0013916511429329
Wood, LJ 2006, Social Capital, Neighbourhood Environments and Health: development of
measurement tools and exploration of links through qualitative and quantitative
research, PhD Thesis, The University of Western Australia.
Woolcock, M 2000, 'Social Capital: The State of the Notion', in Social Capital Global and Local
Perspectives, eds J Kajanoja & J Simpura, Finland Government Institute for Economic
Research, Helsinki, pp. 15-40.
World Health Organisation (WHO) 2010, A conceptual framework for action on the social
determinants of health. Available from:
http://www.who.int/social_determinants/publications/9789241500852/en/
World Health Organisation (WHO) 2014a, Social determinants of health. Available from:
http://www.who.int/social_determinants/en/
World Health Organisation (WHO) 2014b, Health Impact Assessment, World Health
Organisation. Available from: http://www.who.int/hia/about/glos/en/index1.html
World Values Survey Association, World Values Survey 2005-2006. Available from:
http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/index_organization
Young, M 2014, 'Work-Family Conflict in Context: The Impact of Structural and Perceived
Neighborhood Disadvantage on Work-Family Conflict', Social Science Research, vol. 50,
pp.311-327. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.12.001
Young, R 2009, Using Social Network Analysis to Explore the Role of Playgroups as a Channel
for Social Support, Honours Thesis, The University of Western Australia.
Zhou, M & Kim, SS 2006, 'Community forces, social capital, and educational achievement: The
case of supplementary education in the Chinese and Korean immigrant communities',
Harvard Educational Review, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 1-29. Available from Proquest database
237
Ziersch, A, Osborne, K & Baum, F 2011, 'Local Community Group Participation: Who
Participates and What Aspects of Neighbourhood Matter?', Urban Policy and Research,
vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 381-399. doi:10.1080/08111146.2011.623295
Ziersch, AM, Baum, F, Darmawan, GNI, Kavanagh, AM & Bentley, RJ 2009, 'Social capital and
health in rural and urban communities in South Australia', Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Public Health, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 7-16. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2009.00332.x
Ziersch, AM, Baum, FE, MacDougall, C & Putland, C 2005, 'Neighbourhood life and social
capital: the implications for health', Social Science & Medicine, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 71-86.
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.04.027
Zubrick, SR, Silburn, SR & Prior, M 2005, 'Resources and contexts for child development:
Implications for children and society', in No Time to Lose: The Well-being of Australia's
Children, eds S Richardson & M Prior, University Press, Melbourne.
Zubrick, SR, Smith, GJ, Nicholson, JM, Sanson, AV & Jackiewicz, TA 2008, Social Policy Research
Paper No.34: Parenting and Families in Australia, Department of Families, Community
Services and Indigenous Affairs, Australian Government. Available from:
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2012/sprp34.pdf
238
239
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I CONFERENCE AND ORAL PRESENTATIONS
APPENDIX II INTERVIEW MATERIALS
APPENDIX III FOCUS GROUP MATERIALS
APPENDIX IV SURVEY MATERIALS
APPENDIX V SURVEY
APPENDIX VI MANUSCRIPT FOUR UNDER REVIEW
240
APPENDIX I CONFERENCE AND ORAL PRESENTATIONS
Strange, C., Wood, L., Fisher, C., Howat, P. Parenthood and social capital: creating a village in
modern suburbia’. Postgraduate Research Symposium, School of Population Health, UWA.
Western Australia. November 7th 2012. Oral presentation.
Strange, C., Wood, L., Fisher, C., Howat, P. Parenthood and social capital: creating a village in
modern suburbia. Thriving Neighbourhoods Conference. Melbourne. November 13th 2012.
Oral presentation.
Strange, C., Wood, L., Fisher, C., Howat, P. Learning to parent together: how mothers’ groups
and playgroups foster supportive networks and wellbeing. Australian Health Promotion 21st
national Conference. Sydney June 17-19th 2013. Poster presentation.
Strange, C., Wood, L., Fisher, C., Howat, P. Mothers’ groups and playgroups: fostering support
and community connectedness. Early Childhood Education & Care Pre-conference Symposium
at Edith Cowan University. Perth. October 25th 2013. Oral presentation and extended abstract
submission. The recipient of the inaugural Postgraduate Colloquium Award at the ECEC
Symposium.
Strange, C., Wood, L., Fisher, C., Howat, P. How do families with children 0-5 years build social
capital, and feel connected and supported within communities: services and community
groups in newer residential areas. Three minute oral presentation at the Australian Urban
Design Research Centre (AUDRC) 5th December 2013, Perth.
Strange, C., Wood, L., Fisher, C., Howat, P. Connected Families Project: How do families with
children 0-5 years build social capital in newer residential areas? Oral presentation to Centre of
Built Environment and Health (CBEH) Advisory Board Meeting 19th March 2014, Perth.
Strange, C., Fisher, C., Howat, P., & Wood, L., The influence of playgroup participation
on neighbourhood cohesion, community connectedness and mental well-being for parents.
Poster presentation to be presented at 13th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference:
Families in a rapidly changing world 30 July – 1 August 2014, Melbourne.
241
APPENDIX II INTERVIEW MATERIALS
242
243
244
Interview guide for Connected Families Project
1. Parents/carers of children aged 0-5 years I would like to talk to you today about how it is moving into or living in a new suburb with
young children, and what your experiences are of the community groups and services in your
area.
So, firstly, can you tell me a bit about when you first moved into this suburb?
Prompts
Choice and features of the suburb
Time prior to parenthood (may have been a parent prior to the move)
Challenges of relocating
Can you tell me how you got to know your neighbours and neighbourhood?
Prompts
Activities, introductions, over the fence, neighbourhood issues,
Can you tell me a bit about what it has been like as a parent (new) in your
neighbourhood/suburb
Prompts
Transition to parenthood
What have been the challenges
What/ who has been helpful
What would you like to see changed or what would be helpful
Community groups and services relevant to the interviewees needs
We’ve touched on some of the services and groups for young families. Can you tell me a bit
more about your experience with ….(group or service)
Prompts
Positives and negatives
Diversity and inclusion or exclusion – how do people fit in/belong?
Networks and ties – can you give me an example of a network and has this changed
over time?
Support and reciprocity – can you give me an example of giving and another or
receiving? How does this affect the support you receive from your family and other
friends?
Trust within group or service and generally of neighbourhood – does one influence the
other?
Did relationships/friendships/support formed within group extend beyond group
sessions or beyond life of attending a group? Ask for examples – vignettes
Do you feel that there are things about being in a newer suburb that makes it harder or
easier, or are more challenging for parents? - getting support?
If no group: Can you tell me a bit about why you haven’t joined a community group or service?
(applicable to the interviewee –e.g. may use childcare but not mother’s group). Who do you
feel may benefit most from group participation?
Lastly, can you explain to me what ‘being connected to your community’ means to you?
Can you give me an example of how it applies to you and your family?
Do you feel that participating in the community groups and services we have talked about has
helped you become connected to your community? If so, can you give me an example (this
may have already come out when ‘touching on services and groups’). Is there anything else
245
you would like to add?
2. Community groups and service representatives and facilitators
I would like to talk to you today about your views on how it is for families with young children
aged 0-5 years settling in to a new suburb and how your service or group may assist that
transition.
So, firstly, can you tell me a bit about the service or group you are involved with and the
target group?
Prompts
Main aims and objectives
Does it reach the target group? – who are the participants – first time Mums, Dads,
ethnic mix, single parents
Challenges and enablers – things that help or not help the group or service to work well
History and future directions
Can you tell me a bit about your role in this service or group?
Prompts
Facilitator, organiser, liaison
Has this role change? And if so why and how?
Can you tell me a bit about how families get to know of your service or group?
Information channels
Can you tell me whether you feel that there are any unique needs or issues for families of
young kids in newer suburbs? – and if so, can you tell me a bit about them?
Prompts
May include isolation, transport, amenities, services,
Can you tell me a bit about what you feel are the benefits or not for families participating in
your group/service?
Prompts
Positives and negatives
Diversity and inclusion or exclusion – how do people fit in/belong?
Networks and ties
Support and reciprocity – can you give me an example?
Trust within group or service and generally of neighbourhood – does one influence the
other?
Ask for examples - vignettes
To what extent do you feel that the support/relationships extend beyond the group?
Lastly, can you explain to me what ‘being connected to your community’ means to you?
Can you give me an example of how it applies to you, the group?
Do you feel that participating in the community groups/ services you are involved helps
families with children aged 0-5 years become connected to their community? If so, can you
give me an example? (this may have already come out earlier)
Is there anything else you would like to add?
246
APPENDIX III FOCUS GROUP MATERIALS
247
248
249
Focus group guide for Connected Families Project
Parents/carers of children aged 0-5 years
Objective 1. Explore what ‘being connected’ to our local community means to us
Objective 2. Explore how ‘being connected’ to the local community has changed since becoming a parent, and the influences of social support needs and a vested interest in the neighbourhood
Objective 3. Explore the features of newer residential areas that influence families connecting to the community
Objective 4. Explore how groups such as mother’s groups and playgroups enable families to connect to their local communities
I would like to talk to you today about the …(summarise the objectives in an overview and maybe have a small handout of the objectives or have a board with butcher paper etc) So, firstly, I would like to ask you – what do we understand by ‘being connected’ to our local community? Can you give us some examples?
Prompts Suggest involvement, level of involvement, belonging, knowing neighbours and what is
going on, responsibility, feeling part of it, trust and safety
Has this changed since you’ve become parents? If it has – how and why has it changed? Is it more important to be connected as a parent and a family? Can you give us some examples?
Prompts Transition to becoming a parent Support, safety, trust, reciprocity Vested interest in the community Social action and norms
What are the neighbourhood features that help or don’t help families connect with their local community? Would this be the same in newer and older suburbs?
Prompts Shops, hubs, pubs, parks, garage doors, reticulations, clubs and civic centres, building
at the same time
How have groups such as (mothers groups, online groups, playgroups, kindies, daycare etc – refer to the ones that may be relevant to the focus group participants) have in helping you to connect to your community?
Prompts Extended networks, social support and reciprocity, trust- ask for examples
250
Transition to parenthood, sharing the same issues around the same time – ask for examples
To what extent do you feel that the support or relationships extend beyond the group meeting?
Communication- online, ask for examples Positive and negative, diversity, inclusion and exclusion – need to be mindful that
negative features are not likely to be disclosed if people involved are present. PND and other mental health – don’t suggest this as there is not appropriate time to
explore this. If this is raised then explain that due to time limits we can’t give this area the time it requires, but offer to give another time slot or interview to anyone interested in talking more about PND.
Some of you have belonged to more than one group, which group has been the most influential in connecting you to your local community? Why and can you give an example? Prompts
Mothers groups – face to face versus online support groups,
Ok, so just recapping and clarifying your thoughts and ideas (use the list of objectives as a check list and recognise differences in perspectives where given)
Do you have further thoughts you would like to add? Spend a few minutes on the main perspectives given. Thank you
251
APPENDIX IV SURVEY MATERIALS
Source of items for survey Instrument:
Item(s) or scale Type of measure Source
Demographics – gender, age, number of children
under 18 years (gender, age), relationship status,
country of birth, ATSI status, language other than
English, home ownership, employment status,
education, postcode, age of neighbourhood (<10
years/> 10years)
Categorical Adapted from RESIDE
(Giles-Corti, B 2008) and
various survey
instruments
Length of residency in current neighbourhood Ordinal (<1 year, 1-3,
3-5 years, 5-7, > 7 )
Adapted from various
survey instruments
Mobility as change of residence within the last
five years (from within the same suburb,
different Perth suburb, regional or rural,
interstate, overseas, doesn’t apply)
Categorical Adapted from various
survey instruments
Buckner Neighbourhood Cohesion Index (18
items)
5 point Likert Scale Buckner 1988
Neighbourhood attitudes (included in pilot but
removed in main study due to feedback on
length of survey)
5 point Likert modified from RESIDE A2
in T4 survey modified
from (Sampson, Chavis etc
) – minus item on trust as
included in LSAC questions
4 items on community connectedness (includes
item on trust)
5 point Likert Longitudinal Study of
Australian Children (LSAC)
2008
2 items on diversity 5 point Likert Onyx & Bullen (2000)
1 items on safety of neighbourhood for children 5 point Likert Modified from RESIDE
2 items on walking and interacting with others 5 point Likert Modified from RESIDE T4
survey
10 items on reciprocity with neighbours
extended to be relevant for families with young
children e.g ‘cared for a child’
Dichotomous
(given/received)
Modified from (Wood,
2006, Krueter et al.1998,
Modra et al. 1998,
Altschuler et al, 2004) in
RESIDE T4 (A3)
16 items on participation with groups or activities
in local area relevant for families with young
children
Dichotomous
(local/outside local
area)
Modified from RESIDE A4
from T4 survey modified
from (Modra et al. 1998,
Harvard University 2000)
252
Item(s) or scale Type of measure Source
Groups or activities that have helped with
connectedness to local neighbourhood
Nominal Original
Groups or activities that have provided social
support
Nominal Original
Self-rated health Ordinal RESIDE J1 from T4 survey
modified from (ABS)
K-6 psychological distress scale (6 items) (pilot
only)
5 point Likert Kessler et al 2002 (used in
RESIDE and LSAC)
Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (14
items)
5 point Likert Tennant et al 2007 (used
in RESIDE)
Social support (13 items) 5 point Likert Modified from Sherbourne
& Stewart 1991
Parent Support Outside Home Scale (social
support available from outside home)
5 point Likert Original items modelled
from Sherbourne &
Stewart 1991
Social support overall Categorical Modified from LSAC 2008
Community connectedness now as a parent (12
items)
5 point Likert Original
Local amenity as a parent (3 items) 5 point Likert Original
Use of digital communication for non-work (15
items)
Ordinal Original
Hours spent per day on digital communication Ordinal Original
Two questions with reasons listed for use of 1)
Facebook and 2) websites commonly used by
parents with young children
Categorical Original
Value for family support of digital
communication
Categorical Original
An example supporting answer in 33 Open ended Original
Open question asking for feedback or another
perspective
Open ended
253
Recruitment letters
254
255
256
257
Survey poster and postcard graphic
258
259
APPENDIX V SURVEY
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
APPENDIX VI MANUSCRIPT FOUR UNDER REVIEW
TITLE: MOTHERS’ GROUP PARTICIPATION: ASSOCIATIONS WITH
SOCIAL CAPITAL, SOCIAL SUPPORT AND MENTAL WELL-BEING
ABSTRACT
Aim. To investigate the relationships between participation in mothers’ groups and social
capital, social support and mental well-being measures for mothers whose oldest child was 0-5
years.
Background. Evaluations of facilitated mothers’ groups have found positive benefits for
information sharing and support. Mothers’ groups often continue as parent-led groups,
however, little is known about the potential benefits of ongoing participation compared to
non-participation.
Design. Cross-sectional survey
Methods. Data were collected through a survey from March 2013-January 2014 in Perth,
Western Australia. The data from a subgroup of mothers (n=313) whose oldest child was 0-5
years of age were analysed using multivariable regression. Participation in mothers’ groups in
the previous 12 months was investigated for associations with social capital {Neighbourhood
Cohesion Index (NCI); Families, Social Capital and Citizenship Survey (FSCCS) and Reciprocity};
social support {Medical Outcomes Study-Social Support Survey (MOS-SSS) and Parent Support
Outside Home Scale (PSOHS)}; and mental well-being {Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being
Scale (WEMWBS)}. Participation was measured as three groups - locally, outside area of
residence and non-participation.
Results. Mothers who participated in mothers’ groups locally scored significantly higher than
those who had not participated in mothers’ group for social capital (NCI, FSCCS, Reciprocity),
social support (MOS-SSS, PSOHS) and mental well-being (WEMWBS). Mothers who
participated in mothers’ group outside the area scored significantly higher than those who had
not participated in mothers’ groups for one measure of social support (PSOHS).
Conclusions. Participation in mothers’ group locally may provide support and social capital
benefits for mothers of children aged 0-5 years, which may influence mental well-being.
Keywords: community, mental health, women’s health, maternity nursing, nursing, support
270
INTRODUCTION
‘Mothers need others’ is an inferred truism argued by Hrdy (2011), an evolutionary socio-
biologist. Mothers’ groups provide opportunities for new parents to build supportive networks
and community connectedness and can be vital for mothers who would otherwise have a
shortfall of social support (Strange et al. 2014a, Strange et al. 2014b). Evaluations of mothers’
groups tend to focus on the period when they are facilitated (Guest & Keatinge 2009; Fielden
& Gallagher 2008) and less is known about the longer term benefits from ongoing participation
in parent-led mothers’ groups compared to non-participation (Scott et al. 2001, Strange et al.
2014b). There is a dearth of published quantitative investigation of the potential benefits of
mothers’ group participation (facilitated or parent-led). The purpose of this study was to
investigate the relationships between participation in mothers’ groups, facilitated and/or
parent-led, within the previous 12 months and social capital, social support and mental well-
being measures for mothers whose oldest child was 0-5 years, compared to non-participation.
BACKGROUND
Mothers’ groups are facilitated in many countries in a variety of forms. The instigators and
facilitators are often child health nurses (similar to health visitors in the UK), or hospital and
parenting organisations supporting new parents. Common purposes of facilitated groups
include providing information, support and fostering interaction for: new parents (Kruske et al.
2004, Guest & Keatinge 2009, Barnes et al. 2010, Schmied et al. 2014), all parents with infants
(Kearney & Fulbrook 2012, Hjälmhult et al. 2014), and for parents with specific needs such as
teenage mums (Morrison et al. 2014). Facilitated groups also provide opportunities for parents
to develop new social networks (Fielden & Gallagher 2008), preferably in the participant’s local
community (Hjälmhult et al. 2014). After the facilitation period of commonly four to six weeks,
mothers are encouraged to continue meeting as a parent-led mothers’ group to provide
ongoing peer support (Fielden & Gallagher 2008, Strange et al. 2014b).
While a social support network is a reported benefit derived from ongoing participation in
mothers’ groups (Scott et al. 2001), the evidence is scant. A recent qualitative study (Strange et
al. 2014b) found mothers’ groups can provide four potential ongoing benefits for mothers of
young children: peer learning, supportive networks, friendship and community connectedness.
In particular, peer learning and support appear to reduce parental anxiety as experiences and
knowledge are shared and normalised with others experiencing similar things (Strange et al.
2014b). Intrinsically, such benefits may be increasingly important due to social changes in the
parenting landscape.
271
The landscape of family life in Australia, as in many high income countries, has undergone
significant change (Holmes et al. 2012, Bianchi & Milkie 2010). As a result of immigration, one
in four (26%) Australians were born overseas. In Western Australia, the site of this study, the
proportion of overseas born is 30%. In comparison, the proportions of overseas born in some
other OECD countries are: New Zealand 23%, Canada 21%, USA 13% and UK 13% (Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2013). Australian families are often
mobile as indicated by social survey data where 42% of adults overall and 72% of 25-34 year
olds reported a house move within the last five years (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)
2010a), commonly coinciding with starting a family (Clark 2013, Qu et al. 2012). Women are
returning to the workforce earlier after starting a family (Baxter 2013) and staying in the
workforce longer compared to 20 years ago (ABS 2010b). Similar mobility and work trends
have been experienced in other OECD countries (Bianchi & Milkie 2010, Fagan & Norman
2012, Kulu & Milewski 2008). The corollary is, families are more fragmented and traditional
social support systems and social capital may be less accessible than in the past (McMurray
2007, Moore 2008, Leigh 2010).
Social capital is increasingly part of the lexicon relating to social environments and well-being
in communities (Carpiano 2008, Berry & Welsh 2010, Giordano et al. 2013), and is a construct
of relevance to this study. For the purposes of this paper, which has a focus on families with
young children, we refer to Harpham et al.’s (2002, p. 106) definition: “Social capital refer(s) to
the degree of connectedness and the quality and quantity of social relations in a given
population.” Social capital is also described as consisting of structural components or “what
people do” such as participation in social networks, and cognitive components or “what
people feel” such as reciprocity, trust and shared values (Harpham et al. 2002, p.106). Aspects
of social cohesiveness and social support are viewed as features and resources of social capital
by several authors (Harpham 2008, Baum et al. 2009, Berry & Welsh 2010), and this is
congruent with the authors’ views in this study. Associations between social capital and
physical and mental health outcomes have been confirmed in several reviews (De Silva et al.
2005, Islam et al. 2006, Murayama, Fujiwara & Kawachi 2012, McPherson et al. 2014).
However, there has been limited evidence on the links between social capital and parental
well-being, even though there has been recognition of the importance of social network
development for parents with young children (Fielden & Gallagher 2008, Kritsotakis et al.
2013, Hjälmhult et al. 2014).
Perceived social support has been found to be a protective factor for the mental health of new
mothers (Leahy-Warren et al. 2012, Eastwood et al. 2013), disadvantaged mothers of children
aged 0-4 years with depressive symptoms (Mulvaney & Kendrick 2005), and for mental and
272
physical well-being more broadly (Berkman & Glass 2000). Perceived social support is
commonly viewed and measured as functional forms: information, instrumental, emotional
and appraisal (House et al. 1988, Sherbourne & Stewart 1991, Harpham 2008). For example,
instrumental social support for families with young children may include child minding or other
practical help. For families with young children, social support may be drawn from family and
others external to the home. For those with limited access to extended family, social support
from others in the community may be crucial (Strange et al. 2014b).
Studies of maternal mental health for mothers of infants commonly focus on postnatal
depression, which has been inversely associated with informal social support and parental self-
efficacy (Leahy-Warren et al. 2012). However, several authors (see for example Tennant et al.
2007, Bech et al. 2003, Weich et al. 2011) have argued that measuring mental well-being,
which is sometimes referred to as positive mental health, captures a wider scope of
psychological well-being rather than the absence of anxiety or depression symptoms. This view
is further supported by Weich et al.’s (2011) study which found that mental well-being, while
correlated with mental illness, was generally independent, as people with poor mental health
could still experience mental well-being. Positive mental health or well-being has been found
to be associated with neighbourhood connections and social cohesion (Ziersch et al. 2005,
Berry & Welsh 2010), particularly when good relationships exist within the local community
(Jones et al. 2014).
THE STUDY
Aim
The aim was to investigate the relationships between participation in mothers’ groups,
facilitated and/or parent-led, within the previous 12 months and social capital, social support,
and mental well-being measures for mothers whose oldest child was 0-5 years, compared to
non-participation.
Design
The study design was a cross-sectional survey. The questionnaire was informed by formative
qualitative findings (Strange et al. 2014b, Strange et al. 2015) and piloted with parents of
young children (n=73).
Participants and data collection
The results reported here are part of a larger mixed methods study investigating how families
273
with young children build social capital and feel connected and supported in newer residential
areas in Perth, Western Australia. The larger study included survey data collected from parents
who had at least one child aged 0-5 years (n=489). Data were collected principally through an
online survey from March 2013 to January 2014. Only the data from mothers whose oldest
child was aged 0-5 years (n=331) are reported here.
The vast majority (96%) of Australian households with children under 15 years have the
internet (ABS 2014), and formative research identified preference for an online survey.
Ensuring the administration of the survey suits the target audience is congruent with authors
(Lyberg et al. 2012) on survey data collection. The first page of the survey included information
and a statement indicating that completion of the questionnaire was considered consent to
participate in the study.
Recruitment was targeted towards newer residential areas as they are commonly populated
by families with young children (ABS 2012). Furthermore, the physical and social infrastructure
in newer residential areas is emergent (Elton Consulting 2012), which may impact on the
opportunities for social interaction with others in the local community (Baum & Palmer 2002),
particularly for families with young children (Andrews et al. 2014, Strange et al. 2015).
Three local government areas (LGAs) in Perth with residential growth were selected for
recruitment of participants through random selection of childcare centres and playgroups in
those LGAs. There was a low response rate, however, possibly due to several factors such as:
parents too busy caring for young children, no eligibility to enter a draw, or survey fatigue.
Therefore, recruitment was revised.
Recruitment was expanded to include seven additional LGAs in Perth with residential growth
areas. Subsequently, agencies within the 10 LGAs contacted for recruitment promotion
included child health centres, local government early childhood and families services, primary
schools, all playgroups and childcare centres, where known, and a few early childhood
agencies, parent support websites and businesses with Facebook promotion features. In
addition, the first author attended local government family events with hardcopy surveys and
postcards with the survey link. Recruitment promotions included: hardcopy posters and
postcards, and emails and Facebook postings with graphic invitations to participate along with
survey links.
274
Study variables
Mothers’ group participation
Participation in mothers’ groups was assessed by asking respondents to indicate whether they
had participated in a mothers’ group locally or outside their area of residence within the
previous 12 months. The survey question did not specify frequency of participation or whether
the mothers’ group was facilitated or parent-led, and therefore, participation responses may
include either or both forms of mothers’ groups and a range of participation frequency.
Demographic variables
Demographic variables included: parent age, number of children, relationship status, place of
birth, education and employment status. Residential factors included: home ownership, age of
residential area, distance from Perth central business district (CBD), and length of residence.
Social capital
Three different measures were used to capture different components of social capital. The
first, Buckner’s (1988) Neighbourhood Cohesion Index (NCI), also used by Wood et al. (2013),
was used in this study as a measure of ‘cognitive’ social capital or ‘what people feel’ at a local
level (Strange et al. 2015). Buckner’s NCI consists of 18 items and includes several statements
that resonate with the different experiences of community (e.g. ‘I feel like I belong to this
neighbourhood’ and ‘I believe my neighbours would help me in an emergency’). Reliability of
the NCI using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha has ranged from 0.91 (Robinson & Wilkinson 1995)
to 0.95 (Buckner 1988).
Secondly, four items were included from the Families, Social Capital and Citizenship Survey
(FSCCS) (Stone & Hughes 2002). The sum of the scores for these four items was used as applied
by the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC) (Zubrick et al. 2008), as a measure of
‘community connectedness’. The LSAC composite score classified parents who fell in the
lowest 20% as scoring low for community connectedness (Zubrick et al. 2008). One item is a
variation of the commonly used social capital question for trust ‘Most people in this
neighbourhood can be trusted?’ and three items relate to being locally informed, seeking
information and a sense of identity with the neighbourhood.
Thirdly, reciprocity which is also a common social capital metric (Harpham 2008) was
measured as the number of reciprocal categories (Box 1) the respondents were locally involved
in the previous 12 months. This included the respondent doing something for someone in the
275
neighbourhood or someone doing something in the neighbourhood for the respondent
Social support
Two social support scales were used in this study as the second measure was modelled on the
first. The first comprised a modified form of the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support
Survey (MOS-SSS) (Sherbourne & Stewart 1991) (13 of the 18 items, as used in the RESIDE
study) (Giles-Corti et al. 2008). Although the MOS-SSS was originally designed for use with
patients with chronic conditions, it has also been used more widely (Gjesfjeld, Greeno & Kim
2008). It focuses on perceived availability of ‘functional’ social support, including instrumental,
informational and emotional support and companionship (Sherbourne & Stewart 1991). The
MOS-SSS scale has good internal consistency with reported Cronbach alpha coefficients > 0.91
(Sherbourne & Stewart 1991) and more recently 0.83-0.94 for abbreviated versions (Gjesfjeld,
Greeno & Kim 2008). The MOS-SSS is not place specific, so perceived support can be from
within and/or external to the home.
Box 1 Reciprocity categories
Below is a list of activities neighbours sometimes do for one another. In the past 12 months:
Which (if any) have you done for a neighbour or someone living in your neighbourhood?
[Column A]
Which (if any) has a neighbour or someone living in your neighbourhood done for you?
[Column B]
Cared for a child
Cared for a family member other than a child
Looked after a house or garden or collected mail or bins while away
Minded, fed or walked a pet
Loaned household or garden items or tools
Listened to problems
Provided advice or information
Helped with odd jobs
Provided lifts or transport (e.g. to the shops or school)
Other (please write)
The second social support scale, (the Parent Support Outside Home Scale (PSOHS), was
modelled on the MOS-SSS (Sherbourne & Stewart 1991) and developed specifically for this
study to explore perceptions of functional social support available from outside the home,
276
with a focus on support applicable to families with young children. The development of the
PSOHS was guided by formative qualitative investigation (Strange et al. 2014a, Strange et al.
2014b, Strange et al. 2015) and pilot testing. Ten items were designed to reflect different types
of possible functional support available and respondents were asked to indicate the frequency
of occurrence on a Likert scale from 1 (none of the time) to 5 (all of the time). The question
and items are listed in Box 2.
Box 2 Parent Support Outside Home Scale (PSOHS) items
Parents of young children sometimes look to others from outside the home for different
types of support. How often is each of the following kinds of support available, from outside
the home, to you as a parent when you need it?
Someone to give you good advice about your child’s behaviour e.g. feeding
Someone to help in a practical way with your children e.g. child minding or care
Someone to help in a practical way if your child or other family member is unwell
Someone to help in a practical way if you are unwell
Someone to share the joys of parenting with
Someone to share the concerns of parenting with
Someone to learn with about parenting by sharing experiences
Someone to give you information or direct you to information on parenting
Someone who makes you feel like you are doing a good job as a parent
Someone for you and your children together to spend time with
Mental well-being
Positive mental well-being was measured using the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well Being
Scale (WEMWBS) which has been validated in several studies (Tennant et al. 2007, Stewart-
Brown 2013, Maheswaran et al. 2012) and consists of 14 items. Positive mental health
encompasses both hedonic (affect, happiness and life satisfaction) and eudaimonic (cognitive
and psychological functioning such as interpersonal relationships and perceived competence)
perspectives (Tennant et al. 2007, Weich et al. 2011). Positive statements include for example,
‘I’ve been feeling optimistic about the future’ and ‘I’ve been thinking clearly’. The WEMWBS
has had good internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha scores between 0.83 and 0.91
(Tennant et al. 2007).
Ethical considerations
This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee at The University of
Western Australia: RA/4/1/4958.
277
Data analysis
Multivariable linear regression analyses were used to investigate associations between
participation in mothers’ groups and each of the dependent variables (NCI, FSCCS Reciprocity,
MOS-SSS, PSOHS and WEMWBS) with adjustment for demographic variables (number of
children, relationship status, born overseas, education, employment, home ownership, age of
residential area, distance from CBD, and length of residence). Non-normal distributions
(Reciprocity, MOS-SSS and PSOHS) were logged to normalise residual plots as required. SPSS
version 21 (IBM 2012) was used for data analysis and the significance level was set at 0.05.
Validity and reliability
Validated survey tools were used with the exception of the ten item scale PSOHS. To ascertain
validity of this scale, a pilot of the PSOHS was tested (T1) with a convenience sample (n=73)
and then retested (T2). The pilot intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for the PSOHS of 0.42
to 0.67 fell within the accepted range (Dawson & Trapp 2004). The internal consistency
reliability for PSOHS was assessed using Cronbach alpha coefficients (pilot and main
questionnaire) and ranged from 0.93 to 0.95 and inter-item correlations ranged from 0.53 to
0.92, which indicated good internal consistency (Cronbach 1951). Principal axis factoring
analysis was undertaken (main survey) to explore the structure of the PSOHS for subsets that
accounted for common variance. Two factors with eigenvalues exceeding one were identified:
1) instrumental support; and 2) information, emotional and companionship support. There
were no indications that any of the items of the PSOHS should be removed. The PSOHS and
MOS-SSS were strongly correlated (r=0.71).
RESULTS
Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics (n=331) of participants in mothers’ groups
within the previous 12 months (locally and outside the area) and non-participants. As
indicated, 65.9% participated in mothers’ groups.
Chi-square results indicated mothers’ group participants were significantly more likely to have
only one child (p=0.025), have home ownership (p<0.001) and to have lived in their current
suburb three years or longer (p=0.022) compared with those who did not participate in
mothers’ groups within the last 12 months.
Regression analyses was undertaken of data from the subgroup of mothers (n=313) who either
participated in mothers’ groups locally (n=149) or outside the area (n=51), or were non-
participants (n=113). Data from those that participated in a mothers’ group both locally and
278
outside the area (n=18) were not included in the regression analysis due to small group size. As
age of parents was not significantly associated with any of the dependent variables, it was not
included as an adjustment variable. Higher scores indicate greater levels of reported social
capital (NCI, FSCCS and Reciprocity), social support (MOS-SSS and PSOHS), and mental well-
being (WEMWBS).
Table 1 Demographic characteristics by mothers’ group (MG) participation and non-
participation
Mothers with oldest child 0-5 years of age (n=331)
Participated in MG locally or outside the area in the last 12 months (n=218) 65.9%
Did not participate in MG at all in the last 12 months (n=113) 34.1%
p*
N % N %
Age of parents (n=330) 0.512 18-29 years 63 28.8 35 31.0 30-39 138 63.8 66 58.4 40 and older 16 7.4 12 10.6 Number of children in family 0.025 1 118 53.9 44 38.9 2 89 40.6 59 52.2 3 or more 11 5.5 10 8.9 Relationship status 0.715 Married or living with partner 208 95.4 106 93.8 Single, separated, divorced or widowed 10 4.6 7 6.2 Place of birth (n=330) 0.111 Australia 151 69.6 68 60.2 Overseas 66 30.4 45 39.8 Education attained (n=330) 0.122 High school year <10 to year 12 33 15.6 27 23.9 Apprenticeship or equivalent qualification 65 29.8 34 30.1 University or higher degree 119 54.6 52 46.0 Employment status (n=329) 0.692 Full-time paid 23 10.6 16 14.2 Part-time paid 70 32.3 31 27.4 Casual, student, voluntary, unemployed 28 12.9 14 12.4 Home duties 96 44.2 52 46.0 Home ownership <0.001 Own outright or with mortgage 174 79.9 65 57.5 Rent or other 44 20.1 48 42.5 Age of residential area (n=329) 0.529 <10 years 135 61.6 64 57.7
10 years 83 38.4 47 42.3
Postcode distance from Perth CBD 0.906 0-15 km 41 18.8 22 19.5 15-30 km 126 57.8 67 59.3 >30 km (in metro area) 51 23.4 24 21.2 Length of residence in current suburb 0.022 <3 years 97 44.7 66 58.4
3 years 121 55.3 47 41.6 * p values from Chi-square tests, MG (Mothers’ group), CBD (Central Business District)
In the multivariable model, the NCI significant mean scores (Table 2) were 5.25 (95% CI 1.76-
279
8.74) points higher for those who participated in mothers’ group locally compared to those
who did not participate; 5.31 (95% CI 2.11-8.52) points higher for those with two children
compared to one child; 3.70 (95% CI 0.35-7.05) points higher for those born overseas; and 4.17
(95% CI 0.84-7.49) points higher for those who had lived three years or longer in their current
suburb compared to those who had lived there less than three years.
The FSCCS significant mean scores (Table 2) were 1.15 (95% CI 0.46-1.83) points higher for
those who participated in mothers’ group locally compared to those who did not participate;
and 0.64 (95% CI -0.01-1.27) points higher for those with two children compared to one child.
The logged Reciprocity significant mean score (Table 2) was 0.36 (95% CI 0.13-0.59) points,
equivalent to 43% (95% CI 14-80%), higher for those who participated in mothers’ group locally
compared to those who did not participate. The mean score was 0.38 (95% CI 0.17-0.60),
equivalent to 46% (95% CI 19-82%), higher for those with two children compared to one child.
The mean score was 0.40 (95% CI 0.18-0.63), equivalent to 49% (95% CI 20-88%), higher for
those who had lived three years and longer in their current suburb compared to those who
had lived there less than three years.
The logged MOS-SS significant mean score (Table 3) was 0.12 (95% CI 0.05-0.18) points,
equivalent to 13% (95% CI 5-20%), higher for those who participated in mothers’ group locally
compared to those who did not participate. The mean score was 0.07 (95% CI 0.01-0.13),
equivalent to 7% (95% CI 1-14%), higher for those with two children compared to one child.
The logged PSOHS significant mean scores (Table 3) were 0.19 (95% CI 0.11-0.27) points,
equivalent to 21% (95% CI 12-31%), higher for those who participated in mothers’ group
locally, and 0.12 (95% CI 0.03-0.22) points, equivalent to 13% (95% CI 3-25%), higher for those
who participated in mothers’ group outside the area compared to those who did not
participate. The mean score was 0.13 (95% CI 0.05-0.22) points, equivalent to 14% (95% CI 5-
25%), higher for those who owned their home compared to those who did not.
The WEMWBS significant mean scores (Table 3) were 3.26 (95% CI 1.34-5.18) points higher for
those who participated in local mothers’ group compared to those who did not participate;
2.34 (95% CI 0.58-4.11) points higher for those with two children compared to one child; 4.12
(95% CI 0.57-7.69) points higher for those with three or more children compared to one child;
3.31 (95% CI 1.46-5.15) points higher for those born overseas; 2.18 (95% CI 0.28-4.09) points
higher for those with a university education compared with those with an apprentice or
equivalent qualification; 1.92 (95% CI 0.01-3.84) points higher for those in part-time
employment compared to home duties; and 2.39 (95% CI 0.58-4.20) points higher for those
280
who lived in an area developed within the last ten years compared to those who lived in older
areas.
Table 2 Multivariable regression results for social capital measures (NCI and FSCCS) and
reciprocity
Mothers of oldest child 0-5 years
(n = 313)
Neighbourhood Cohesion Index (NCI)
Family Social Capital and Citizen Survey (FSCCS)
Reciprocityb
β 95% CI p β 95% CI p β 95% CI p Mothers’ group (MG) 0.012 0.002 0.010
Participated locally 5.251 (1.76,8.74) 0.003 1.146 (0.46,1.83) 0.001 0.361 (0.13,0.59) 0.002
Participated outside area
1.881 (-2.59,6.35) 0.410 0.036 (-0.84,0.92) 0.936 0.134 (-0.17,0.43) 0.382
Did not participate 0a 0
a 0
a
Number of children 0.005 0.135 0.002
3 or more 4.186
(-2.26,10.63)
0.203 0.367 (-0.90,1.64) 0.571 0.362 (-0.07,0.80) 0.100
2 5.315 (2.11,8.52) 0.001 0.643 (-0.01,1.27) 0.045 0.383 (0.17,0.60) <0.001
1 0a 0
a 0
a
Relationship status
Married or living with partner
2.174 (-4.94,9.23) 0.549 -0.082 (-1.48,1.32) 0.908 -0.057 (-0.53,0.42) 0.815
Single, separated, divorced or widowed
0a 0
a 0
a
Place of birth
Australia -3.702 (-7.05,-0.35) 0.030 -0.237 (-0.89,0.42) 0.481 -0.071 (-0.30,0.15) 0.537
Overseas 0a 0
a 0
a
Education attained 0.397 0.967 0.863
High school year <10-12
1.943 (-2.18,6.07) 0.356 0.091 (-0.72,0.90) 0.826 -0.037 (-0.31,0.24) 0.793
Apprenticeship or equivalent qualification
2.236 (-1.24,5.71) 0.207 0.070 (-0.61,0.75) 0.840 0.042 (-0.19,0.27) 0.725
University or higher deg.
0a 0
a 0
a
Employment 0.066 0.140 0.176
Full-time employment -4.504 (-9.52,0.52) 0.079 -0.865 (-1.85,0.12) 0.086 -0.243 (-058,0.09) 0.157
Part-time employment -3.065 (-6.55,-0.42) 0.085 -0.323 (-1.01,0.36) 0.355 -0.136 (-0.37,0.10) 0.254
Casual/Student/volunteer/unemployed
2.011 (-2.73,6.76) 0.406 0.475 (-0.46,1.41) 0.319 0.160 (-0.16,0.48) 0.324
Home duties 0a
0a
0a
Home ownership
Owns home (mortgage/outright)
2.600 (-1.29,6.49) 0.190 0.316 (-0.45,1.08) 0.417 -0.098 (-0.36,0.16) 0.462
Rents or other 0a
0a
0a
Age of residential area
<10 years -1.512 (-4.81,1.79) 0.370 -0.500 (-1.15,0.15) 0.130 -0.039 (-0.26,0.18) 0.730
10 years 0a 0
a 0
a
Distance from CBD 0.805 0.873 0.344
0-15 km -0.464 (-5.40,4.47) 0.854 -0.153 (-1.12,0.82) 0.757 -0.048 (-0.38,0.28) 0.778
15-30 km -1.201 (-4.90,2.50) 0.525 0.073 (-0.66,0.80) 0.845 -0.173 (-0.42,0.08) 0.171
>30 km(in metro area) 0a 0
a 0
a
Length of residence
<3 years -4.166 (-7.49,-0.84 0.014 -0.417 (-1.07,0.24) 0.212 -0.403 (-0.63,-0.18) <0.001
3 years 0a 0
a 0
a
a β =0 indicates reference category, b Reciprocity logged for non-normal distribution
281
Table 3 Multivariable regression results for social support measures (MOS-SS and PSOHS) and
mental well-being (WEMWBS)
Mothers of oldest child 0-5 years
(n = 313)
Medical Outcomes Study – Social Support Survey
(MOS-SSS) b
Parent Support Outside Home Scale (PSOHS)
b
Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale
(WEMWBS)
β 95% CI p β 95% CI p β 95% CI p
Mothers’ group (MG) 0.002 <0.001 0.003
Participated locally 0.117 (0.05,0.18) 0.001 0.191 (0.11,0.27) <0.001 3.261 (1.34,5.18) 0.001
Participated outside area
0.084 (0.00,0.17) 0.058 0.124 (0.03,0.22) 0.014 0.945 (-1.51,3.40) 0.451
Did not participate 0a 0
a 0
a
Number of children 0.079 0.400 0.009
3 or more -0.002 (-0.13,0.12) 0.975 -0.028 (-0.17,0.15) 0.704 4.120 (0.57,7.67) 0.023
2 0.068 (0.01,0.13) 0.031 0.042 (-0.03,0.11) 0.250 2.343 (0.58,4.11) 0.009
1 0a 0
a 0
a
Relationship status
Married or living with partner
0.136 (0.00,0.27) 0.051 0.137 (-0.03,0.30) 0.098 3.685 (-0.23,7.60) 0.065
Single, separated, divorced or widowed
0a 0
a 0
a
Place of birth
Australia 0.009 (-0.06,0.07) 0.783 0.012 (-0.06,0.09) 0.745 -3.306 (-5.15,-1.46) <0.001
Overseas 0a 0
a 0
a
Education attained 0.060 0.086 0.073
High school year <10-12 0.077 (-0.01,0.16) 0.057 0.086 (-0.01,0.18) 0.070 -0.438 (-2.72,1.84) 0.707
Apprenticeship or equivalent
-0.023 (-0.09,0.04) 0.507 -0.022 (-0.10,0.06) 0.574 -2.184 (-4.09,-0.28) 0.025
University or higher deg.
0a 0
a 0
a
Employment 0.548 0.561 0.158
Full-time employment 0.038 (-0.06,0.13) 0.442 0.014 (-0.10,0.13) 0.798 2.114 (-0.65,4.87) 0.133
Part-time employment 0.048 (-0.02,0.11) 0.162 0.029 (-0.05,0.11) 0.457 1.923 (0.01,3.84) 0.049
Casual/Student/volunteer/unemployed
0.027 (-0.07,0.12) 0.567 0.075 (-0.31,0.18) 0.166 1.701 (-0.91,4.31) 0.202
Home duties 0a
0a
0a
Home ownership
Owns home (mortgage/outright)
0.043 (-0.03,0.12) 0.270 0.134 (0.05,0.22) 0.002 1.187 (-0.95,3.32) 0.277
Rents or other 0a
0a
0a
Age of residential area
<10 years 0.027 (-0.04,0.09) 0.403 -0.035 (-0.11,0.04) 0.351 2.389 (0.58,4.20) 0.010
10 years 0a 0
a 0
a
Distance from CBD 0.605 0.905 0.648
0-15 km 0.001 (-0.09,0.10) 0.983 -0.013 (-0.12,0.10) 0.811 -0.822 (-3.54,1.89) 0.553
15-30 km -0.031 (-0.10,0.41) 0.400 -0.019 (-0.10,0.06) 0.654 -0.959 (-2.97,1.08) 0.356
>30 km(in metro area) 0a 0
a 0
a
Length of residence
<3 years 0.014 (-0.05,0.08) 0.659 0.020 (-0.05,0.10) 0.590 -0.001 (-1.83,1.83) 0.999
3 years 0a 0
a 0
a
a β =0 indicates reference category, b MOS-SSS and PSOHS logged for non-normal distributions
DISCUSSION
This study is the first to examine quantitatively the relationship between participation in
mothers’ groups (facilitated and/or parent-led) and social capital, social support and mental
282
well-being. Mothers who participated in mothers’ groups locally scored significantly higher
than those who had not participated in mothers’ group within the previous 12 months for
social capital (NCI, FSCCS, reciprocity) social support (MOS-SSS, PSOHS) and for mental well-
being (WEMWBS). Mothers who participated in mothers’ group outside the area scored
significantly higher than those who had not participated in mothers’ group for one measure of
social support (PSOHS). Therefore, mothers’ group participation outside the area does not
appear to have the same strength of association as local participation, despite the outside area
participants having consistently higher means than non-participants for all measures.
Overall, these findings suggest that participation in mothers’ groups locally potentially help
families connect to their local communities and build supportive networks, which may impact
on mental well-being. Furthermore, these results support recent qualitative findings (Strange
et al. 2014b) on the benefits of local participation in community groups such as mothers’
groups. In addition, the PSOHS findings suggest that mothers’ group participation either locally
or outside the area may be beneficial in building social support outside the home. The
reliability and regression findings support the view that the PSOHS may be a useful tool to
measure perceived support from outside the home for families with young children. In
addition, home ownership appears to influence social support from outside the home and may
reflect a stronger motivation or a favoured position from which to develop locally supportive
networks (Manturuk et al. 2010).
Mothers with two children in this study generally had higher social capital. Two children may
provide more opportunities to build social capital through increased opportunities to interact
in the community. This is compatible with Wood et al. (2013) who found that parents built
social capital amidst the human connections they developed through the activities of their
children. Furthermore, it is plausible that two children may increase the need for, and
likelihood of, reciprocal activity; for example, child minding. In addition, those who had lived
three years or longer in their current suburb scored higher for two of the social capital
measures (NCI and Reciprocity), which suggests that ‘it takes time’ as well as opportunities to
interact in order to build social capital. These findings are congruent with other studies that
have found greater community connectedness for those who had lived longer in the area and
who had more opportunities to interact (Ziersch et al. 2005, Mohnen et al. 2013).
That mothers with two or more children scored higher means for mental well-being and one
social support measure (MOS-SSS) than mothers with one child is an important finding. This
suggests that the mothers with one child, in this sample, may have felt a shortfall in support
and mental well-being. Our sample of parents with one child included new parents who can
283
feel overwhelmed (Nystrom & Ohrling 2004) and are vulnerable for mental health problems,
such as postnatal depression, which is associated with lower levels of social support (Leahy-
Warren et al. 2011). It is noteworthy that 27% of mothers with one child had not participated
in a mothers’ group (facilitated or parent-led) in the previous 12 months. However, there are
many reasons why mothers may choose to not belong or continue with a mothers’ group;
these include an unsupportive or conflicting group dynamic, employment demands or having
another supportive network (Strange et al. 2014b). Conversely, families of young children are
very mobile (Maguire et al. 2011) and mothers who relocate (inter-suburb, interstate and
overseas) commonly lose contact with their mothers’ group, at least face-to-face, and may be
unable to join a mothers’ group in their new area due to limited service capacity (Strange et al.
2014b). It is likely that the mothers with two or more children participated in parent-led
mothers’ groups as facilitated groups are generally restricted to new mothers (Schmied et al.
2014).Therefore, these findings suggest that ongoing participation in parent-led mothers’
groups may nurture mental well-being through the preschool years and highlight the
importance of linking new parents and parents with children 0-5 years of age into supportive
local groups.
Mothers born overseas scored higher means for one of the social capital measures as well as
for mental well-being than those born in Australia. This was an unexpected finding as other
evidence indicates immigrant mothers of infants are at greater risk of social isolation and
depression (Stewart et al. 2008, Eastwood et al. 2013). There were no differences in age of
residential area for social capital and social support measures, however, those who lived in
newer areas (<10 years) scored higher means for mental well-being. While we do not know
other residential area factors of the respondents, such as physical and social infrastructure,
this finding flags the potential impact of the built environment on mental well-being in this
sample of mothers.
Mothers with either higher education or part-time employment scored higher means for
mental well-being, findings congruent with those from an emergent body of research on
maternal paid employment (Strazdins et al. 2008, Buehler & O'Brien 2011, Gjerdingen et al.
2014). However, employment for mothers with young children is likely to be multi-factorial
and impacted by such factors as childcare and support within and external to the home, in
addition to employment specific factors.
The multiple factors associated with mental well-being identified in this study, such as
participation (mothers’ groups), number of children, employment and education highlight the
complexity of mental health. Nevertheless, as parents with young children, in particular new
284
mothers, are potentially at greater risk of mental health problems (Mulvaney & Kendrick 2005,
Leahy-Warren et al. 2012), a better understanding of protective factors is needed. Parenthood
is a communal experience where isolation and lack of support may lead to poorer outcomes
for mothers and children (Sims 2009, Hrdy 2011). The findings here indicate that mothers’
group participation, particularly locally, may afford several benefits that impact on support and
mental well-being.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Non-random sampling and cross sectional surveys such as used in this study cannot confer
cause and effect nor generalizability. The initial low response to random sampling and
subsequent recruitment strategies, which included social media, resulted in participant ‘self-
selection’ and potential for selection bias. The majority (93%) of the respondents in the larger
study (n=489) reported they had found out about the survey through either email or a website
such as a Facebook page. In Australia, 66% of adults use online social networking sites (ABS
2014), similar to the US (Kapp et al. 2013), and mothers have been commonly au fait with
parenting websites for several years (Madge & O'Connor 2006, Porter & Ispa 2013). While the
use of online social networking as a field for data collection is growing, due to cost
effectiveness, rapid dissemination and high visibility, more innovation and research is required
to learn how to optimise use to achieve completion rates and sample heterogeneity (Kapp et
al. 2013, Capurro et al. 2014). As promotional material in this study was posted on Facebook
pages, forwarded in emails and in electronic newsletters, it was not possible to control or
measure the final scope of recruitment measures, which may have influenced self-selection
and sample heterogeneity. In our sample, 72% owned their home or had a mortgage
compared to 64% of Australian families with eldest child 0-5 years (ABS 2013); 95% had
partners compared to 78% of Australian families with children (Weston et al. 2013); and 11.5%
spoke a language other than English in the home compared to 20.4% of Australian households
(ABS 2012). Therefore, the findings may not reflect the experiences of many single parents or
those from more diverse and disadvantaged backgrounds in Australia or other countries with
similar demography (OECD 2013).
CONCLUSION
Overall, the mothers who participated in mothers’ groups locally (facilitated and/or parent-led)
in the previous 12 months had higher scores for social capital, social support and mental well-
being compared to those who had not participated. Participation in a mothers’ group outside
the residential area did not have the same strength of association. Therefore, local
participation in mothers’ groups may have greater benefits for mothers with young children.
285
The lower scores for parents with one child compared to those with two children are
important and flag the imperative to create opportunities for parents and new mothers to
build supportive social networks. Starting a family often coincides with home relocation, and
our findings indicate that length of residence may impact on social capital, as newcomers (<3
years) had lower means for neighbourhood cohesion and reciprocity – it takes time to grow
roots.
The findings point to potential implications for practice and policy for services working with
families with young children in communities. Families with infants and young children who
have relocated may benefit from being linked into a mothers’ group or other parent group
locally. While we cannot determine from this study what types of mothers’ groups provide
greater benefits, parent-led groups commonly arise from facilitated ‘new mothers’ groups
(Scott et al. 2001, Strange et al. 2014b). Therefore, the findings in this study support the
significant value of maternal and child health services engaged in initiating and facilitating
mothers’ groups for new parents. In addition, other family support services facilitate groups
for parents with infants (For example, Whiteside et al. 2014). As mothers with one child (aged
0-5 years) scored lower for social capital, social support and mental well-being, strengthening
such services could be considered for this sub-group.
Longitudinal research is needed to further investigate the associations found in this study.
Nevertheless, this study provides evidence on the potential benefits of participation in local
mothers’ groups that may enable the building of social capital and a supportive network, which
underpins well-being.
REFERENCES
Andrews, FJ, Rich, S, Stockdale, R & Shelley, J 2014, 'Parents׳ experiences of raising pre-school aged
children in an outer-Melbourne growth corridor', Health & Place, vol. 27, pp. 220-228.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2010a, General social survey: Summary results, Australian Bureau of
Statistics, Canberra. Available from:
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/D0B6CB77DE0BF677CA25791A00824C41/$F
ile/41590_2010.pdf
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2010b, Australian Social Trends September 2010: Older people and
the labour market, ABS, Canberra. Available from:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features30Sep+2010
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2012, Census for a brighter future, ABS, Canberra. Available from:
http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/census?opendocument&navpos=10
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2013, Housing Occupancy and Costs, 2011-12, cat.no.4130.0, ABS,
Canberra. Available from:
286
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Latestproducts/4130.0Main%20Features22011-
12?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4130.0&issue=2011-12&num=&view=#
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2014, Household Use of Information Technology, ABS, Canberra.
Available from: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/8146.0Chapter12012-13#
Barnes, MI, Pratt, J, Finlayson, K, Pitt, B & Knight, C 2010, 'The First Steps Program: a case study of a new
model of community child health service', Australian Health Review, vol. 34, pp. 386-389.
Baum, F & Palmer, C 2002, '‘Opportunity structures’: urban landscape, social capital and health
promotion in Australia', Health Promotion International, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 351-361.
Baum, FE, Ziersch, AM, Zhang, G & Osborne, K 2009, 'Do perceived neighbourhood cohesion and safety
contribute to neighbourhood differences in health?', Health & Place, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 925-934.
Baxter, J 2013, Parents working out work, vol. Australian Family Trends No.1, Australian Institute of
Family Studies, Commonwealth of Australia, Melbourne. Available from:
https://www.nesa.com.au/media/50416/130423_australian%20institute%20of%20family%20studies_a
ustralian%20family%20trends%20report%20no.%201%20-%20parents%20working%20out%20work.pdf
Bech, P, Olsen, LR, Kjoller, M & Rasmussen, NK 2003, 'Measuring well‐being rather than the absence of
distress symptoms: a comparison of the SF‐36 Mental Health subscale and the WHO‐Five well‐being
scale', International journal of methods in psychiatric research, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 85-91.
Berkman, L & Glass, T 2000, 'Social Integration, Social Networks, Social Support, and Health.', in Social
Epidemiology, eds L Berkman & I Kawachi, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 137-173
Berry, HL & Welsh, JA 2010, 'Social capital and health in Australia: An overview from the household,
income and labour dynamics in Australia survey', Social Science & Medicine, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 588-596.
Bianchi, SM & Milkie, MA 2010, 'Work and Family Research in the First Decade of the 21st Century',
Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 705-725.
Buckner, JC 1988, 'The development of an instrument to measure neighbourhood cohesion', American
Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 771-791.
Buehler, C & O'Brien, M 2011, 'Mothers' part-time employment: associations with mother and family
well-being', Journal of Family Psychology, vol. 25, no. 6, p. 895.
Capurro, D, Cole, K, Echavarría, MI, Joe, J, Neogi, T & Turner, AM 2014, 'The Use of Social Networking
Sites for Public Health Practice and Research: A Systematic Review', Journal of medical Internet research,
vol. 16, no. 3, p. e79.
Carpiano, RM 2008, 'Actual or potential neighborhood resources and access to them: Testing
hypotheses of social capital for the health of female caregivers', Social Science & Medicine, vol. 67, no. 4,
pp. 568-582.
Clark, WA 2013, 'Life course events and residential change: unpacking age effects on the probability of
moving', Journal of Population Research, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 319-334.
Cronbach, LJ 1951, 'Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests', Psychometrika, vol. 16, no. 3,
pp. 297-334.
287
Dawson, B & Trapp, RG 2004, Basic & clinical biostatistics, Lange Medical Books/McGraw-Hill New York:.
De Silva, MJ, McKenzie, K, Harpham, T & Huttly, SRA 2005, 'Social capital and mental illness: a systematic
review', Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 619-627.
Eastwood, J, Jalaludin, B, Kemp, L, Phung, H, Barnett, B & Tobin, J 2013, 'Social exclusion, infant
behavior, social isolation, and maternal expectations independently predict maternal depressive
symptoms', Brain and behavior, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 14-23.
Elton Consulting 2012, Tomorrow's healthy and productive communities: The case for community
infrastructure in outer metropolitan growth areas, National Growth Areas Alliance. Available from:
http://ngaa.org.au/media/806/ngaa_report_tomorrows_healthy_and_productive_communities_novem
ber_2012.pdf
Fagan, C & Norman, H 2012, 'Trends and social divisions in maternal employment patterns following
maternity leave in the UK', International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, vol. 32, no. 9/10, pp. 544-
560.
Fielden, JM & Gallagher, LM 2008, 'Building social capital in first-time parents through a group-parenting
program: A questionnaire survey', International Journal of Nursing Studies, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 406-417.
Fosse, E, Bull, T, Burström, B & Fritzell, S 2014, 'Family Policy and Inequalities in Health in Different
Welfare States', International Journal of Health Services, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 233-253.
Giles-Corti, B, Knuiman, M, Timperio, A, Van Niel, K, Pikora, TJ, Bull, FC, Shilton, T & Bulsara, M 2008,
'Evaluation of the implementation of a state government community design policy aimed at increasing
local walking: design issues and baseline results from RESIDE, Perth Western Australia', Preventive
medicine, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 46-54.
Giordano, GN, Merlo, J, Ohlsson, H, Rosvall, M & Lindström, M 2013, 'Testing the association between
social capital and health over time: a family-based design', BMC Public Health, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 665.
Gjerdingen, D, McGovern, P, Attanasio, L, Johnson, PJ & Kozhimannil, KB 2014, 'Maternal depressive
symptoms, employment, and social support', The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, vol.
27, no. 1, pp. 87-96.
Gjesfjeld, CD, Greeno, CG & Kim, KH 2008, 'A confirmatory factor analysis of an abbreviated social
support instrument: The MOS-SSS', Research on Social Work Practice, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 231-237.
Guest, EM & Keatinge, DR 2009, 'The Value of New Parent Groups in Child and Family Health Nursing',
The Journal of Perinatal Education, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 12-22.
Harpham, T 2008, 'The Measurement of Community Social Capital Through Surveys', in Social Capital
and Health, eds I Kawachi, SV Subramanian & D Kim, Springer New York, pp. 51-62.
Harpham, T, Grant, E & Thomas, E 2002, 'Measuring social capital within health surveys: key issues',
Health Policy & Planning, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 106-111.
Hjälmhult, E, Glavin, K, Økland, T & Tveiten, S 2014, 'Parental groups during the child's first year: an
interview study of parents' experiences', Journal of Clinical Nursing, vol. 23, no. 19-20, pp. 2980-2989.
Holmes, D, Hughes, K & Julian, R 2012, Australian sociology: A changing society, Pearson Australia,
Malaysia.
288
House, JS, Umberson, D & Landis, KR 1988, 'Sructures and Processes of Social Support', Annual Review of
Sociology, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 293-318.
Hrdy, SB 2011, Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding, The Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
IBM SPSS Statistics Version 21.0 (IBM Corp. Released 2012. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version
21.0 Armonk, NY: IBM Corp)
Islam, MK, Merlo, J, Kawachi, I, Lindström, M & Gerdtham, U-G 2006, 'Social capital and health: Does
egalitarianism matter? A literature review', International journal for equity in health, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 3.
Jones, R, Heim, D, Hunter, S & Ellaway, A 2014, 'The relative influence of neighbourhood incivilities,
cognitive social capital, club membership and individual characteristics on positive mental health',
Health & Place, vol. 28, pp. 187-193.
Kapp, J, Peters, C & Oliver, D 2013, 'Research Recruitment Using Facebook Advertising: Big Potential, Big
Challenges', Journal of cancer education: the official journal of the American Association for Cancer
Education, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 134-137.
Kearney, L & Fulbrook, P 2012, 'Open-access community child health clinics: The everyday experience of
parents and child health nurses', Journal of Child Health Care, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 5-14.
Kritsotakis, G, Vassilaki, M, Melaki, V, Georgiou, V, Philalithis, AE, Bitsios, P, Kogevinas, M, Chatzi, L &
Koutis, A 2013, 'Social capital in pregnancy and postpartum depressive symptoms: A prospective
mother–child cohort study (the Rhea study)', International Journal of Nursing Studies, vol. 50, no. 1, pp.
63-72.
Kruske, S, Schmied, V, Sutton, I & O'Hare, J 2004, 'Mothers' Experiences of Facilitated Peer Support
Groups and Individual Child Health Nursing Support: A comparative evaluation', The Journal of Perinatal
Education, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 31-38.
Kulu, H & Milewski, N 2008, 'Family change and migration in the life course: An introduction',
Demographic Research, vol. 17, pp. 567-590.
Leahy-Warren, P, McCarthy, G & Corcoran, P 2011, 'Postnatal Depression in First-Time Mothers:
Prevalence and Relationships Between Functional and Structural Social Support at 6 and 12 Weeks
Postpartum', Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 174-184.
Leahy-Warren, P, McCarthy, G & Corcoran, P 2012, 'First-time mothers: social support, maternal
parental self-efficacy and postnatal depression', Journal of Clinical Nursing, vol. 21, no. 3-4, pp. 388-397.
Leigh, A 2010, Disconnected, University of New South Wales, Sydney.
Lyberg, LE, Biemer, P, Collins, M, De Leeuw, ED, Dippo, C, Schwarz, N & Trewin, D 2012, Survey
measurement and process quality, John Wiley & Sons.
Madge, C & O'Connor, H 2006, 'Parenting gone wired: empowerment of new mothers on the internet?',
Social & Cultural Geography, vol. 7, no. 02, pp. 199-220.
Maguire, B, Edwards, B & Soloff, C 2011, 'Housing characteristics and changes across waves', in
Longitudinal Study of Australian Children Annual Statistical Report 2011, Australian Institute of Family
Studies, Melbourne, pp. 67-76.
289
Maheswaran, H, Weich, S, Powell, J & Stewart-Brown, S 2012, 'Evaluating the responsiveness of the
Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS): Group and individual level analysis', Health
Qual Life Outcomes, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 156.
Manturuk, K, Lindblad, M & Quercia, R 2010, 'Friends And Neighbors: Homeownership And Social Capital
Among Low‐To Moderate‐Income Families', Journal of Urban Affairs, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 471-488.
McMurray, A 2007, Community Health and Wellness: a socio-ecological approach, 3rd edn, Mosby
Elsevier, Sydney.
McPherson, KE, Kerr, S, McGee, E, Morgan, A, Cheater, FM, McLean, J & Egan, J 2014, 'The association
between social capital and mental health and behavioural problems in children and adolescents: an
integrative systematic review', BMC Psychology, vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 1-16.
Mohnen, SM, Völker, B, Flap, H, Subramanian, S & Groenewegen, PP 2013, 'You have to be there to
enjoy it? Neighbourhood social capital and health', The European Journal of Public Health, vol. 23, no. 1,
pp. 33-39.
Moore, T 2008, Supporting young children and their families: Why we need to rethink services and
policies, Centre for Community Child Health,, Parkeville, Victoria. Available from:
http://www.rch.org.au/emplibrary/ccch/Need_for_change_working_paper.pdf
Morrison, J, Pikhart, H, Ruiz, M & Goldblatt, P 2014, 'Systematic review of parenting interventions in
European countries aiming to reduce social inequalities in children's health and development', BMc
Public Health, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 1040.
Mulvaney, C & Kendrick, D 2005, 'Depressive symptoms in mothers of pre-school children', Social
Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 202-208.
Murayama, H, Fujiwara, Y & Kawachi, I 2012, 'Social Capital and Health: A Review of Prospective
Multilevel Studies', Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 179-187.
Nyström, K & Öhrling, K 2004, 'Parenthood experiences during the child's first year: literature review',
Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 319-330.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development Factbook 2013. Available from: http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/economics/oecd-factbook-2013_factbook-2013-en;jsessionid=1t8bkifafttup.x-oecd-live-01
Porter, N & Ispa, JM 2013, 'Mothers’ online message board questions about parenting infants and
toddlers', Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 559-568.
Qu, L, Baxter, J, Weston, R, Moloney, L & Hayes, A 2012, Family-related life events: insights from two
Australian longitudinal studies, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Australian Government,
Melbourne. Available from: http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/resreport22/index.html
Robinson, D & Wilkinson, D 1995, 'Sense of community in a remote mining town: Validating a
neighborhood cohesion scale', American Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 137-148.
Schmied, V, Fowler, C, Rossiter, C, Homer, C & Kruske, S 2014, 'Nature and frequency of services
provided by child and family health nurses in Australia: results of a national survey', Australian Health
Review, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 177-185.
290
Scott, D, Brady, S & Glynn, P 2001, 'New mother groups as a social network intervention: consumer and
maternal and child health nurse perspectives', Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 18, no. 4, pp.
23-29.
Sherbourne, CD & Stewart, AL 1991, 'The MOS social support survey', Social Science & Medicine, vol. 32,
no. 6, pp. 705-714.
Sims, M 2009, 'Neurobiology and child development: Challenging current interpretation and policy
implications', Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 36-42.
Stewart-Brown, S 2013, 'The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): performance in
different cultural and geographical groups', in Mental Well-Being, Springer, pp. 133-150.
Stewart, DE, Gagnon, A, Saucier, J-F, Wahoush, O & Dougherty, G 2008, 'Postpartum depression
symptoms in newcomers', Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, vol. 53, no.
2, pp. 121-124.
Stone, W & Hughes, J 2002, Families, Social Capital and Citizenship Survey, Australian Institute of Family
Studies, Australian Government, Melbourne. Available from:
http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/rp27/
Strange, C, Fisher, C, Howat, P & Wood, L 2014a, 'The essence of being connected: the lived experience
of mothers with young children in newer residential areas', Community, Work & Family, vol. 17, no. 4,
pp. 486-502.
Strange, C, Fisher, C, Howat, P & Wood, L 2014b, 'Fostering supportive community connections through
mothers' groups and playgroups', Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 70, no. 12, pp. 2835-2846.
Strange, C, Fisher, C, Howat, P & Wood, L 2015, 'Creating a village in modern suburbia: parenthood and
social capital', Urban Policy and Research, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 160-177.
Strazdins, L, Lucas, N, Mathews, B, Berry, H, Rodgers, B & Davies, A 2008, Parent and child wellbeing and
the influence of work and family arrangements: A three cohort study, Report to the Australian
Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Available
from: https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2012/sprp_44.pdf
Tennant, R, Hiller, L, Fishwick, R, Platt, S, Joseph, S, Weich, S, Parkinson, J, Secker, J & Stewart-Brown, S
2007, 'The Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation',
BMC Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, vol. 5, no. 1, p. e63.
Weich, S, Brugha, T, King, M, McManus, S, Bebbington, P, Jenkins, R, Cooper, C, McBride, O & Stewart-
Brown, S 2011, 'Mental well-being and mental illness: findings from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity
Survey for England 2007', The British Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 199, no. 1, pp. 23-28.
Weston, R, Qu, L & Baxter, J 2013, Australian families with children and adolescents, Australian Institute
of Family Studies, Australian Government, Melbourne. Available from:
http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/factssheets/2013/familytrends/aft5/
291
Whiteside, L, Barratt-Pugh, C, Barblett, L, Stamopoulos, E, Knaus, M, Targowska, A & Teather, S 2014,
Child and Parent Centres on Public School Sites in Low Socioeconomic Communities in Western Australia:
A Model of Integrated Service Delivery Literature Review, Office of Early Childhood Development and
Learning, Department of Education, Western Australia., Perth. Available from:
http://www.det.wa.edu.au/curriculumsupport/earlychildhood/detcms/navigation/initiatives/child-and-
parent-centres/
Wood, L, Giles-Corti, B, Zubrick, SR & Bulsara, MK 2013, '“Through the Kids . . . We Connected With Our
Community”: Children as Catalysts of Social Capital', Environment and Behavior, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 344-
368.
Ziersch, AM, Baum, FE, MacDougall, C & Putland, C 2005, 'Neighbourhood life and social capital: the
implications for health', Social Science & Medicine, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 71-86.
Zubrick, SR, Smith, GJ, Nicholson, JM, Sanson, AV & Jackiewicz, TA 2008, Social Policy Research Paper
No.34: Parenting and Families in Australia, Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs, Australian Government. Available from:
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2012/sprp34.pdf
