Search

What is the relationship between community trust and household health? Scholars working to understand the effects of trust and social capital on human health tend to focus on individual characteristics or social environments, frequently without integrating these two dimensions. In light of this, the present paper makes contributions in both conceptualization and measurement. First, I develop a spatially-based approach for operationalizing community trust as the product of individual orientation and social environment. This approach highlights the need for a household to trust its neighbors and for those neighbors to reciprocate trust in order to constitute the psychological and material mechanisms critical for linking social context to individual health. Second, I illustrate the utility of this measure by evaluating the relationship between community trust and self-rated health status using an original population census survey from 2009 to 2010 for two municipalities in western Honduras (approximately 2800 households with a response rate of 94.9%). I implement spatial regression analysis and show that there is a positive and substantively meaningful relationship between community trust and household health; households that are trusting and surrounded by similarly trusting neighbors report better health status, while those in uncertain or mutually distrusting environments report worse health. The theory and results presented here suggest an important link between trust and social capital at the community level, which is particularly salient for rural regions in developing countries where health resources are scarce and community-based interventions are common. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Budget experiments can provide additional guidance to health system reform requiring the identification of a subset of programs and services that accrue the highest social value to ‘communities’. Such experiments simulate a realistic budget resource allocation assessment among competitive programs, and position citizens as decision makers responsible for making ‘collective sacrifices’. This paper explores the use of a participatory budget experiment (with 88 participants clustered in social groups) to model public health care reform, drawing from a set of realistic scenarios for potential health care users. We measure preferences by employing a contingent ranking alongside a budget allocation exercise (termed ‘willingness to assign’) before and after program cost information is revealed. Evidence suggests that the budget experiment method tested is cognitively feasible and incentive compatible. The main downside is the existence of ex-ante “cost estimation” bias. Additionally, we find that participants appeared to underestimate the net social gain of redistributive programs. Relative social value estimates can serve as a guide to aid priority setting at a health system level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]