Social network targeting to maximise population behaviour change: a cluster randomised controlled trial
Open accessAbstract
Background Information and behaviour can spread through interpersonal ties. By targeting influential individuals, health interventions that harness the distributive properties of social networks could be made more effective and efficient than those that do not. Our aim was to assess which targeting methods produce the greatest cascades or spillover effects and hence maximise population-level behaviour change.Methods In this cluster randomised trial, participants were recruited from villages of the Department of Lempira, Honduras. We blocked villages on the basis of network size, socioeconomic status, and baseline rates of water purification, for delivery of two public health interventions: chlorine for water purification and multivitamins for micronutrient deficiencies. We then randomised villages, separately for each intervention, to one of three targeting methods, introducing the interventions to 5% samples composed of either: randomly selected villagers (n=9 villages for each intervention); villagers with the most social ties (n=9); or nominated friends of random villagers (n=9; the last strategy exploiting the so-called friendship paradox of social networks). Participants and data collectors were not aware of the targeting methods. Primary endpoints were the proportions of available products redeemed by the entire population under each targeting method. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01672580.Findings Between Aug 4, and Aug 14, 2012, 32 villages in rural Honduras (25-541 participants each; total study population of 5773) received public health interventions. For each intervention, nine villages (each with 1-20 initial target individuals) were randomised, using a blocked design, to each of the three targeting methods. In nomination-targeted villages, 951 (74·3%) of 1280 available multivitamin tickets were redeemed compared with 940 (66·2%) of 1420 in randomly targeted villages and 744 (61·0%) of 1220 in indegree-targeted villages. All pairwise differences in redemption rates were significant (p<0·01) after correction for multiple comparisons. Targeting nominated friends increased adoption of the nutritional intervention by 12·2% compared with random targeting (95% CI 6·9-17·9). Targeting the most highly connected individuals, by contrast, produced no greater adoption of either intervention, compared with random targeting.Interpretation Introduction of a health intervention to the nominated friends of random individuals can enhance that intervention's diffusion by exploiting intrinsic properties of human social networks. This method has the additional advantage of scalability because it can be implemented without mapping the network. Deployment of certain types of health interventions via network targeting, without increasing the number of individuals targeted or the resources used, could enhance the adoption and efficiency of those interventions, thereby improving population health.Funding National Institutes of Health, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Star Family Foundation, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 36 · Cited by 350
- Authors
- Kim, D. A., Hwong, A. R., Stafford, D., Hughes, D. A., O'Malley, A. J., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Yale University (US)
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Corresponding author
- Christakis, Nicholas A
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-07
- Volume
- 386
- Issue
- 9989
- Pages
- 145-153
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- PMC
- PMC4638320
- OpenAlex
- W2164487624
- Cited by
- 350
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 22.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- The Lancet (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (P-30 AG034420, P-01 AG031093, F30 AG046978)
- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
- Keywords
- behavior change, diffusion of innovations, friendship paradox, influential people, social ties, multivitamin supplementation, micronutrient deficiency, spillover effects, rural villages, Honduras, health interventions, social network analysis, network centrality, socioeconomic status, water quality
- MeSH terms
- Assessment of Medication Adherence, Adult, Disinfection, Female, Health Promotion, Honduras, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Public Health, Rural Health, Social Change, Social Class, Sodium Hypochlorite, Vitamins, Health Behavior, Drug Monitoring, Water Purification, Micronutrients, Medication Adherence, Young Adult, Social Networking
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review