Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29058638›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2017

Use of social network analysis methods to study professional advice and performance among healthcare providers: a systematic review.

Kate Sabot, Deepthi Wickremasinghe, Karl Blanchet, Bilal Avan, Joanna Schellenberg

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Mapping the Lay of the Land: Using Interactive Network Analytic Tools for Collaboration in Rural Cancer Prevention and Control.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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.

Kate SabotThe Centre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive and Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. kate.sabot@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4713-1505
Deepthi WickremasingheThe Centre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive and Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Karl BlanchetDepartment of Global Health, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Bilal AvanThe Centre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive and Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Joanna SchellenbergThe Centre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive and Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial network analysis quantifies and visualizes relationships between and among individuals or organizations. Applications in the health sector remain underutilized. This systematic review seeks to analyze what social network methods have been used to study professional communication and performance among healthcare providers.

methodsTen databases were searched from 1990 through April 2016, yielding 5970 articles screened for inclusion by two independent reviewers who extracted data and critically appraised each study. Inclusion criteria were study of health care worker professional communication, network methods used, and patient outcomes measured. The search identified 10 systematic reviews. The final set of articles had their citations prospectively and retrospectively screened. We used narrative synthesis to summarize the findings.

resultsThe six articles meeting our inclusion criteria described unique health sectors: one at primary healthcare level and five at tertiary level; five conducted in the USA, one in Australia. Four studies looked at multidisciplinary healthcare workers, while two focused on nurses. Two studies used mixed methods, four quantitative methods only, and one involved an experimental design. Four administered network surveys, one coded observations, and one used an existing survey to extract network data. Density and centrality were the most common network metrics although one study did not calculate any network properties and only visualized the network. Four studies involved tests of significance, and two used modeling methods. Social network analysis software preferences were evenly split between ORA and UCINET. All articles meeting our criteria were published in the past 5 years, suggesting that this remains in clinical care a nascent but emergent research area. There was marked diversity across all six studies in terms of research questions, health sector area, patient outcomes, and network analysis methods.

conclusionNetwork methods are underutilized for the purposes of understanding professional communication and performance among healthcare providers. The paucity of articles meeting our search criteria, lack of studies in middle- and low-income contexts, limited number in non-tertiary settings, and few longitudinal, experimental designs, or network interventions present clear research gaps. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015019328.

Indexed as

Interprofessional RelationsOutcome Assessment, Health CareSocial SupportDeveloping CountriesHealth PersonnelHumansSoftwareHealthcare workersHealth outcomesHealth system performanceNetwork analysisProfessional adviceProfessional communicationSocial network analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29058638
PMCPMC5651641

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.