Globalization and Health (Dec 2021)

Review of social networks of professionals in healthcare settings—where are we and what else is needed?

  • Huajie Hu,
  • Yu Yang,
  • Chi Zhang,
  • Cong Huang,
  • Xiaodong Guan,
  • Luwen Shi

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-021-00772-7
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 17, no. 1
pp. 1 – 17

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Social Network Analysis (SNA) demonstrates great potential in exploring health professional relationships and improving care delivery, but there is no comprehensive overview of its utilization in healthcare settings. This review aims to provide an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding the use of SNA in understanding health professional relationships in different countries. Methods We conducted an umbrella review by searching eight academic databases and grey literature up to April 30, 2021, enhanced by citation searches. We completed study selection, data extraction and quality assessment using predetermined criteria. The information abstracted from the reviews was synthesized quantitatively, qualitatively and narratively. Results Thirteen reviews were included in this review, yielding 330 empirical studies. The degree of overlaps of empirical studies across included reviews was low (4.3 %), indicating a high diversity of included reviews and the necessity of this umbrella review. Evidence from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), particularly Asian countries, was limited. The earliest review was published in 2010 and the latest in 2019. Six reviews focused on the construction or description of professional networks and seven reviews reported factors or influences of professional networks. We synthesized existing literature on social networks of health care professionals in the light of (i) theoretical frameworks, (ii) study design and data collection, (iii) network nodes, measures and analysis, and (iv) factors of professional networks and related outcomes. From the perspective of methodology, evidence lies mainly in cross-sectional study design and electronic data, especially administrative data showing “patient-sharing” relationships, which has become the dominant data collection method. The results about the impact of health professional networks on health-related consequences were often contradicting and not truly comparable. Conclusions Methodological limitations, inconsistent findings, and lack of evidence from LMIC imply an urgent need for further investigations. The potential for broader utilization of SNA among providers remains largely untapped and the findings of this review may contain important value for building optimal healthcare delivery networks. PROSPERO registration number The protocol was published and registered with PROSPERO, the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020205996).

Keywords