↓ Skip to main content

Unfolding similarity in interphysician networks: the impact of institutional and professional homophily

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Unfolding similarity in interphysician networks: the impact of institutional and professional homophily
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0748-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniele Mascia, Fausto Di Vincenzo, Valentina Iacopino, Maria Pia Fantini, Americo Cicchetti

Abstract

Modern healthcare is characterized by high complexity due to the proliferation of specialties, professional roles, and priorities within organizations. To perform clinical interventions, knowledge distributed across units, directorates and individuals needs to be integrated. Formal and/or informal mechanisms may be used to coordinate knowledge and tasks within organizations. Although the literature has recently considered the role of physicians' professional networks in the diffusion of knowledge, several concerns remain about the mechanisms through which these networks emerge within healthcare organizations. The aim of the present paper is to explore the impact of institutional and professional homophilies on the formation of interphysician professional networks. We collected data on a community of around 300 physicians working at a local health authority within the Italian National Health Service. We employed multiple regression quadratic assignment procedures to explore the extent to which institutional and professional homophilies influence the formation of interphysician networks. We found that both institutional and professional homophilies matter in explaining interphysician networks. Physicians who had similar fields of interest or belonged to the same organizational structure were more likely to establish professional relationships. In addition, professional homophily was more relevant than institutional affiliation in explaining collaborative ties. Our findings have organizational implications and provide useful information for managers who are responsible for undertaking organizational restructuring. Healthcare executives and administrators may want to consider the structure of advice networks while adopting new organizational structures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 61 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 18%
Student > Master 9 15%
Other 6 10%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 14 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 23%
Social Sciences 13 21%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 22 35%
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 16 March 2015.
All research outputs
#18,402,666
of 22,794,367 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,468
of 7,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,720
of 258,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#76
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,794,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 258,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.