A SERIES OF STUDIES ON USING SOCIAL NETWORKS TO INFORM AND SUPPORT EVIDENCE-INFORMED PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE IN CANADA: INVESTIGATING ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIAL NETWORKS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In a mixed-methods study I assessed the role of social networks as predictors and outcomes of the implementation of an intervention to promote evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) in three public health departments in Ontario, Canada. The quantitative strand included the analysis of the role of staff’s position in networks on the adoption of EIDM, the longitudinal evolution of networks, and the association between the name generators’ position in surveys and respondents’ motivation to answer survey questions. The qualitative strand aimed to explain and contextualize the quantitative findings. Methods: A tailored intervention was implemented in the public health departments, including the mentoring of staff through the EIDM process by a knowledge broker. The staff participated in three online surveys before and after the 22-month intervention, providing the names of peers to whom they turned to seek information, whom they considered as experts, and their friends. I assessed the dynamic evolution of social networks, and the role of local opinion leaders (OL) in promoting the adoption of EIDM. I interviewed key network actors about their interpretation and experience regarding the quantitative findings. Results: Overall, there was no statistically significant impact on EIDM behavior and skill in health departments. However, the analysis of the role of OLs in behaviour change showed that non-engaged staff who were connected to highly engaged OLs, and those OLs who communicated with each other improved their EIDM behavior. Social networks became more centralized around already popular staff due to selective training of recognized experts. Highly engaged staff tended to connect to each other, and to limit their connections within organizational divisions over time. In the department where multiple activities were being implemented to support EIDM, the highly engaged staff became more popular due to department-wise presentations and informal information spread. I also found that when name generator questions are asked later in surveys then respondents are more likely to refuse, indicate they do not know anyone, or provide fewer names than when these questions are asked earlier Conclusion: Social network analysis showed the structure of information-seeking relations, the impact of opinion leaders on the EIDM behavior of their peers, and underlying social changes through implementing an EIDM intervention. These findings can inform the design and tailoring of EIDM interventions in public health organizations.
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 | 0.016 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".