Can peer effects explain prescribing appropriateness? a social network analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Optimizing prescribing practices is important due to the substantial clinical and financial costs of polypharmacy and an increasingly aging population. Prior research shows the importance of social relationships in driving prescribing behaviour. Using social network analysis, we examine the relationship between a physician practices' connectedness to peers and their prescribing performance in two German regions. METHODS: We first mapped physician practice networks using links established between two practices that share 8 or more patients; we calculated network-level (density, average path length) and node-level measures (degree, betweenness, eigenvector). We defined prescribing performance as the total number of inappropriate medications prescribed or appropriate medications not prescribed (PIMs) to senior patients (over the age of 65) during the calendar year 2016. We used FORTA (Fit fOR The Aged) algorithm to classify medication appropriateness. Negative binomial regression models estimate the association between node-level measures and prescribing performance of physician practices controlling for patient comorbidity, provider specialization, percentage of seniors in practice, and region. We conducted two sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of our findings - i) limiting the network mapping to patients younger than 65; ii) limiting the network ties to practices that share more than 25 patients. RESULTS: We mapped two patient-sharing networks including 436 and 270 physician practices involving 28,508 and 20,935 patients and consisting of 217,126 and 154,274 claims in the two regions respectively. Regression analyses showed a practice's network connectedness as represented by degree, betweenness, and eigenvector centrality, is significantly negatively associated with prescribing performance (degree-bottom vs. top quartile aRR = 0.04, 95%CI: 0.035,0.045; betweenness-bottom vs. top quartile aRR = 0.063 95%CI: 0.052,0.077; eigenvector-bottom vs. top quartile aRR = 0.039, 95%CI: 0.034,0.044). CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence that physician practice prescribing performance is associated with their peer connections and position within their network. We conclude that practices occupying strategic positions at the edge of networks with advantageous access to novel information are associated with better prescribing outcomes, whereas highly connected practices embedded in insulated information environments are associated with poor prescribing performance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".