MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409181826 · doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2025.03.006

Modeling the “who” and “how” of social influence in the adoption of health practices

2025· article· en· W4409181826 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Networks · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
FundersBill and Melinda Gates FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Family planning is heralded as one of the ten most significant contemporary public health achievements, yet it remains underutilized in countries, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, that might most benefit from it. While substantial strides have been made to address supply-side barriers to modern contraceptive (MC) adoption in these regions, demand-side obstacles like personal or partner opposition are less understood. This study investigates the role of social influence in shaping MC demand in communities with low modern Contraceptive Prevalence Rates (mCPR). Using the Structured Influence Process (SIP) framework, we examine how an individual's social relations and exposure to persuasive messages, either in support of or opposition to MC use, jointly influence their decision to adopt or reject contraceptives. Using survey data from two different Kenyan communities, both exhibiting low mCPR but one relatively higher than the other, we observe that mere exposure to MC users or non-users during free-time interactions is insufficient to sway usage decisions. However, the combination of direct contact with contraceptive users and persuasive messages emerges as a potent force of influence. In the lower mCPR community, only a few types of persuasive messages are circulated, and they are all consistently influential in either encouraging or discouraging MC use. These messages primarily appeal to individuals’ desire to do what is “right” by emphasizing social validation and deference to trusted authorities, or their desire to do what is “liked” by reinforcing interpersonal bonds and reciprocal obligations. In the higher mCPR community, a broader range of persuasive messages effectively promote MC use; however, only those invoking social shame effectively discourage it. These findings highlight a crucial distinction between “prevalent vs. persuasive” messaging: While many persuasive messages may be prevalent (i.e., used often), only a subset are also persuasive. Recognizing which messages are merely pervasive versus those that are genuinely effective is vital for efficiently allocating resources to promote or counter MC use narratives. Leveraging research across network science and persuasion, this study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of how social influence shapes contraceptive decision-making. • Empirically shows that network ties influence modern contraceptive (MC) use through explicit persuasive messages about MCs. • Exposure to MC users does not lead to MC adoption unless close friends and family actively discuss their MC use decisions. • In higher-prevalence communities, many persuasive message types circulate but only shame-based ones effectively deter MC use. • In lower-prevalence communities, fewer persuasive message types circulate but all effectively influence MC use and non-use.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.370 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it