Table 1.
Community, participant, and network characteristics by intervention and comparison group at baseline
| Intervention | Comparison | Difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 12 | n = 7 | p | ||
| Proportion of population <5 years of age | LGA mean % (range) | 7 (6–9) | 7 (6–9) | .849 |
| Population density (persons/km2) | LGA mean | 326 | 373 | .749 |
| Employed in education/healthcarea | LGA mean % | 18.8 | 19.7 | .617 |
| Index of advantage and disadvantageb | LGA mean ranking (range) | 6 (2–9) | 5 (3–8) | .645 |
| Participants | Total (mean per LGA) | 78 (7) | 29 (4) | .262 |
| Participant (ego) networks (out-degree) | Total (mean per ego) | 762 (10) | 234 (8) | .110 |
| Participant age, years | Mean (SD) | 41 (5) | 47 (8) | .089 |
| Participant sex | Female (%) | 76 (97) | 29 (100) | .279 |
| Participant community affiliation | ||||
| State/local government | N (%) | 29 (37) | 10 (34) | .188 |
| Early childhood servicec | N (%) | 25 (32) | 16 (55) | .017 |
| Other health/education | N (%) | 17 (22) | 2 (7) | .053 |
| Other | N (%) | 7 (9) | 1 (3) | .998 |
| Network community affiliations | ||||
| State/local government | N (%) | 246 (32) | 80 (35) | .066 |
| Early childhood servicec | N (%) | 167 (22) | 42 (19) | .108 |
| Other health/education | N (%) | 208 (27) | 57 (25) | .726 |
| Other | N (%) | 139 (18) | 48 (21) | .641 |
| Nature of network relationships | ||||
| Professional contact | N (%) | 359 (47) | 104 (44) | .412 |
| Colleague/co-worker | N (%) | 228 (30) | 94 (40) | .466 |
| Manager/employee | N (%) | 108 (14) | 25 (11) | .670 |
| Friend | N (%) | 25 (3) | 4 (2) | .200 |
| Other | N (%) | 40 (5) | 7 (3) | .943 |
Bold-face value denotes statistical significance at the p < .05 level.
LGA: Local government area; SD: standard deviation;
a% of employed population in Education & training, Health care & social assistance.
bSocio-Economic Index for Areas (SEIFA) decile ranking, low (1) to high (10).
cMaternal & Child Health, Long Day Care, Kindergarten.