ArticleImplementation science : IS2016
The social network around influenza vaccination in health care workers: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Network approaches and interventions in healthcare settings: A systematic scoping review.PloS one · 2023Article
- Depressive symptoms homophily among community-dwelling older adults in japan: A social networks analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- A network analysis of patient referrals in two district health systems in Tanzania.Health policy and planning · 2021Article
- Behavior of nurses and nurse aides toward influenza vaccine: the impact of the perception of occupational working conditions.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2020Article
- Understanding health decision making: An exploration of homophily.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2018Review
- Influenza vaccination in healthcare workers: A comprehensive critical appraisal of the literature.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInfluenza vaccination coverage remains low among health care workers (HCWs) in many health facilities. This study describes the social network defined by HCWs' conversations around an influenza vaccination campaign in order to describe the role played by vaccination behavior and other HCW characteristics in the configuration of the links among subjects.
methodsThis study used cross-sectional data from 235 HCWs interviewed after the 2010/2011 influenza vaccination campaign at the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona (HCB), Spain. The study asked: "Who did you talk to or share some activity with respect to the seasonal vaccination campaign?" Variables studied included sociodemographic characteristics and reported conversations among HCWs during the influenza campaign. Exponential random graph models (ERGM) were used to assess the role of shared characteristics (homophily) and individual characteristics in the social network around the influenza vaccination campaign.
resultsLinks were more likely between HCWs who shared the same professional category (OR 3.13, 95% CI = 2.61-3.75), sex (OR 1.34, 95% CI = 1.09-1.62), age (OR 0.7, 95% CI = 0.63-0.78 per decade of difference), and department (OR 11.35, 95% CI = 8.17-15.64), but not between HCWs who shared the same vaccination behavior (OR 1.02, 95% CI = 0.86-1.22). Older (OR 1.26, 95% CI = 1.14-1.39 per extra decade of HCW) and vaccinated (OR 1.32, 95% CI = 1.09-1.62) HCWs were more likely to be named.
conclusionsThis study finds that there is no homophily by vaccination status in whom HCWs speak to or interact with about a workplace vaccination promotion campaign. This result highlights the relevance of social network analysis in the planning of health promotion interventions.
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.