A Network Analysis Perspective to Implementation: The Example of Health Links to Promote Coordinated Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although implementation models broadly recognize the importance of social relationships, our knowledge about applying social network analysis (SNA) to formative, process, and outcome evaluations of health system interventions is limited. We explored applications of adopting an SNA lens to inform implementation planning, engagement and execution, and evaluation. We used Health Links, a province-wide program in Canada aiming to improve care coordination among multiple providers of high-needs patients, as an example of a health system intervention. At the planning phase, an SNA can depict the structure, network influencers, and composition of clusters at various levels. It can inform the engagement and execution by identifying potential targets (e.g., opinion leaders) and by revealing structural gaps and clusters. It can also be used to assess the outcomes of the intervention, such as its success in increasing network connectivity; changing the position of certain actors; and bridging across specialties, organizations, and sectors. We provided an overview of how an SNA lens can shed light on the complexity of implementation along the entire implementation pathway, by revealing the relational barriers and facilitators, the application of network-informed and network-altering interventions, and testing hypotheses on network consequences of the implementation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".