↓ Skip to main content

The influential role of personal advice networks on general practitioners’ performance: a social capital perspective

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The influential role of personal advice networks on general practitioners’ performance: a social capital perspective
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2467-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefano Calciolari, Laura G. González-Ortiz, Federico Lega

Abstract

In several health systems of advanced countries, reforms have changed primary care in the last two decades. The literature has assessed the effects of a variety of interventions and individual factors on the behavior of general practitioners (GPs). However, there has been a lack of investigation concerning the influence of the resources embedded in the GPs' personal advice networks (i.e., social capital) on GPs' capacity to meet defined objectives. The present study has two goals: (a) to assess the GPs' personal advice networks according to the social capital framework and (b) to test the influence of such relationships on GPs' capacity to accomplish organizational goals. The data collection relied on administrative data provided by an Italian local health authority (LHA) and a survey administered to the GPs of the selected LHA. The GPs' personal advice networks were assessed through an ad-hoc instrument and interpreted as egocentric networks. Multivariate regression analyses assessed two different performance measures. Social capital may influence the GPs' capacity to meet targets, though the influence differs according to the objective considered. In particular, the higher the professional heterogeneity of a GP personal advice network, the lower her/his capacity is to meet targets of prescriptive appropriateness. Our findings might help to design more effective primary care reforms depending on the pursued goals. However, further research is needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 20%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 17 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Social Sciences 5 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 17 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 August 2017.
All research outputs
#17,913,495
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,349
of 7,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,855
of 317,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#143
of 165 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,702 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,854 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 165 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.