Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25890319›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2015

Unfolding similarity in interphysician networks: the impact of institutional and professional homophily.

Daniele Mascia, Fausto Di Vincenzo, Valentina Iacopino, Maria Pia Fantini, Americo Cicchetti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Daniele MasciaDepartment of Public Health and ALTEMS (Graduate School of Health Economics and Management), Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Largo F. Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy. dmascia@rm.unicatt.it.
Fausto Di VincenzoDepartment of Economic Studies, G. d'Annunzio University, Viale Pindaro 42, 65127, Pescara, Italy. f.divincenzo@unich.it.
Valentina IacopinoDepartment of Economics and Management and ALTEMS (Graduate School of Health Economics and Management), Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Largo F. Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy. valentina.iacopino@rm.unicatt.it.
Maria Pia FantiniDepartment of Public Health, University of Bologna, Via San Giacomo 12, 40126, Bologna, Italy. mariapia.fantini@unibo.it.
Americo CicchettiDepartment of Economics and Management and ALTEMS (Graduate School of Health Economics and Management), Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Largo F. Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy. acicchetti@rm.unicatt.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundModern healthcare is characterized by high complexity due to the proliferation of specialties, professional roles, and priorities within organizations. To perform clinical interventions, knowledge distributed across units, directorates and individuals needs to be integrated. Formal and/or informal mechanisms may be used to coordinate knowledge and tasks within organizations. Although the literature has recently considered the role of physicians' professional networks in the diffusion of knowledge, several concerns remain about the mechanisms through which these networks emerge within healthcare organizations. The aim of the present paper is to explore the impact of institutional and professional homophilies on the formation of interphysician professional networks.

methodsWe collected data on a community of around 300 physicians working at a local health authority within the Italian National Health Service. We employed multiple regression quadratic assignment procedures to explore the extent to which institutional and professional homophilies influence the formation of interphysician networks.

resultsWe found that both institutional and professional homophilies matter in explaining interphysician networks. Physicians who had similar fields of interest or belonged to the same organizational structure were more likely to establish professional relationships. In addition, professional homophily was more relevant than institutional affiliation in explaining collaborative ties.

conclusionsOur findings have organizational implications and provide useful information for managers who are responsible for undertaking organizational restructuring. Healthcare executives and administrators may want to consider the structure of advice networks while adopting new organizational structures.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelInterprofessional RelationsSocial NetworkingCooperative BehaviorCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth FacilitiesHumansItalyMaleNational Health ProgramsPhysiciansProfessional RoleSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID25890319
PMCPMC4365537

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.