ArticleJournal of health and social behavior2010
The cultivation of esteem and retrieval of scientific knowledge in physician networks.
Article in Journal of health and social behavior, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Professional Values and Educational Needs among Mental Health Specialists in Russia: Survey Results.Consortium psychiatricum · 2022Article
- The Legacy of a Neurosurgeon: A U.S.-Based Obituary Analysis.World neurosurgery · 2019Article
- How the study of networks informs knowledge translation and implementation: a scoping review.Implementation science : IS · 2019Article
- Temporal and Atemporal Provider Network Analysis in a Breast Cancer Cohort from an Academic Medical Center (USA).Informatics (MDPI) · 2018Article
- Article
- New chronic disease medication prescribing by nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and primary care physicians: a cohort study.BMC health services research · 2016Article
- Who Were the Early Adopters of Dabigatran?: An Application of Group-based Trajectory Models.Medical care · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This article evaluates how physicians draw upon scientific and other forms of knowledge in different professional communities. We argue that because physicians will draw upon clinical research findings to improve their reputation with colleagues, and because the terms for accruing esteem in an academic hospital may differ depending on the dominant task structure of the organization, the form of knowledge that is valued by a physician will vary with his or her hospital's level of prestige. We use social network and multivariate analyses to test this theory in six U.S. hospitals with varying levels of prestige. We find that in lower-prestige hospitals, physicians can improve their reputation by reading a relatively broad range of scientific journals, whereas in higher-prestige hospitals, esteem is allocated to those with a more elite medical school pedigree. Statistically significant differences also exist between hospitals in terms of whether work with patients is valued, with physicians who engage in more clinical activity in the highest-ranked hospitals receiving less esteem from their colleagues. We finish by discussing how the functioning of higher- and lower-prestige hospitals is interconnected in ways that sustain both the development of innovations and their widespread adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.