 |
 |
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
| Home |
Volume 7: No. 6, November 2010
| Type of Partnership Configuration (Breadth/Density/Centrality) | Prevalence, % (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| 1998 | 2006 | |
| Comprehensive | ||
| Cluster 1 (High/High/Moderate) | 13 (9-17) | 21 (16-27) |
| Cluster 2 (High/High/Low) | 5 (2-8) | 3 (1-6) |
| Cluster 3 (High/Low/High) | 6 (3-9) | 12 (8-16) |
| Conventional | ||
| Cluster 4 (Moderate/Moderate/High) | 3 (1-5) | 3 (1-5) |
| Cluster 5 (Moderate/Moderate/Low) | 45 (39-52) | 31 (25-37) |
| Limited | ||
| Cluster 6 (Low/Low/High) | 14 (9-18) | 18 (13-23) |
| Cluster 7 (Low/Moderate/Low) | 14 (9-18) | 11 (7-15) |
Figure. Prevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of 7 public health partnership configurations, 1998 and 2006. Data were obtained from a survey of the 351 agencies that responded in both years (29,30). Seven configurations were identified through multivariate cluster analysis, each one distinguished by network breadth, density, and centrality. Breadth represents the array of actors involved in the partnerships; density represents the amount of interconnectedness between organizations; and centrality represents the relative influence of a single organization within a partnership.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Privacy Policy | Accessibility This page last reviewed October 25, 2011
|
|
