↓ Skip to main content

Between-group behaviour in health care: gaps, edges, boundaries, disconnections, weak ties, spaces and holes. A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, December 2010
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Between-group behaviour in health care: gaps, edges, boundaries, disconnections, weak ties, spaces and holes. A systematic review
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, December 2010
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-10-330
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey Braithwaite

Abstract

Gaps are typically regarded as a problem to be solved. People are stimulated to close or plug them. Researchers are moved to fill deficits in the literature in order to realise a more complete knowledge base, health authorities want to bridge policy-practice disconnections, managers to secure resources to remedy shortfalls between poor and idealised care, and clinicians to provide services to patients across the divides of organisational silos.Despite practical and policy work in many health systems to bridge gaps, it is valuable to study research examining them for the insights provided. Structural holes, spaces between social clusters and weak or absent ties represent fissures in networks, located in less densely populated parts of otherwise closely connected social structures. Such gaps are useful as they illustrate how communication potentially breaks down or interactivity fails. This paper discusses empirical and theoretical work on this phenomenon with the aim of analysing a specific exemplar, the structures of silos within health care organisations. The research literature on social spaces, holes, gaps, boundaries and edges was searched systematically, and separated into health [n = 13] and non-health [n = 55] samples. The health literature was reviewed and synthesised in order to understand the circumstances between stakeholders and stakeholder groups that both provide threats to networked interactions and opportunities to strengthen the fabric of organisational and institutional inter-relationships. The research examples illuminate various network structure characteristics and group interactions. They explicate a range of opportunities for improved social and professional relations that understanding structural holes, social spaces and absent ties affords. A principal finding is that these kinds of gaps illustrate the conditions under which connections are strained or have been severed, where the limits of integration between groups occurs, the circumstances in which social spaces are or need to be negotiated and the way divides are bridged. The study's limitations are that it is bounded by the focus of attention and the search terms used and there is yet to be developed a probabilistic, predictive model for gaps and how to connect them. Gaps offer insights into social structures, and how real world behaviours of participants in workplaces, organisations and institutions are fragile. The paper highlights the circumstances in which network disjunctures and group divides manifest. Knowledge of these phenomenon provides opportunities for working out ways to improve health sector organisational communications, knowledge transmission and relationships.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Hungary 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 120 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 16%
Researcher 19 15%
Student > Master 16 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 32 25%
Unknown 17 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 32 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 18 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 20 16%