CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 120Health Policy Implementation ScienceEvaluation and Performance AssessmentComplex Network Analysis Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Social network diagnostics: a tool for monitoring group interventions

Open access
Gesell, Sabina B, Barkin, Shari L, Valente, Thomas W·2013·Implementation Science
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-8-116PMC PMC3851809
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many behavioral interventions designed to improve health outcomes are delivered in group settings. To date, however, group interventions have not been evaluated to determine if the groups generate interaction among members and how changes in group interaction may affect program outcomes at the individual or group level. METHODS: This article presents a model and practical tool for monitoring how social ties and social structure are changing within the group during program implementation. The approach is based on social network analysis and has two phases: collecting network measurements at strategic intervention points to determine if group dynamics are evolving in ways anticipated by the intervention, and providing the results back to the group leader to guide implementation next steps. This process aims to initially increase network connectivity and ultimately accelerate the diffusion of desirable behaviors through the new network. This article presents the Social Network Diagnostic Tool and, as proof of concept, pilot data collected during the formative phase of a childhood obesity intervention. RESULTS: The number of reported advice partners and discussion partners increased during program implementation. Density, the number of ties among people in the network expressed as a percentage of all possible ties, increased from 0.082 to 0.182 (p < 0.05) in the advice network, and from 0.027 to 0.055 (p > 0.05) in the discussion network. CONCLUSIONS: The observed two-fold increase in network density represents a significant shift in advice partners over the intervention period. Using the Social Network Tool to empirically guide program activities of an obesity intervention was feasible.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1748-5908-8-116

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Action plan for interventionist to increase small group cohesion. Based on network diagnostic tool results.
Figure 1 Action plan for interventionist to increase small group cohesion. Based on network diagnostic tool results.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Evolution of social networks during the intervention period. (a). Advice networks at weeks four and twelve. (b). Discussion networks at weeks four and twelve. Density, the proportion of links in the network, increased from 0.082 to 0.182 in the advice network (t = 2.13, p < 0.05); and from 0.027 to 0.055 in the discussion network (t = 1.02, p > 0.05). This greater than two-fold increase represents a substantial shift in reported network partners over eight weeks of programmatic activity.
Figure 2 Evolution of social networks during the intervention period. (a). Advice networks at weeks four and twelve. (b). Discussion networks at weeks four and twelve. Density, the proportion of links in the network, increased from 0.082 to 0.182 in the advice network (t = 2.13, p < 0.05); and from 0.027 to 0.055 in the discussion network (t = 1.02, p > 0.05). This greater than two-fold increase represents a substantial shift in reported network partners over eight weeks of programmatic activity.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Network density for advice and discussion networks at weeks four and twelve. The density of the advice network and the density of the discussion network each increased from weeks four (wave two) to twelve (wave three). The number of reported advice partners and discussion partners increased but the density values are depressed by the four non-participants who did not provide nominations and were not nominated due to their non-participation.
Figure 3 Network density for advice and discussion networks at weeks four and twelve. The density of the advice network and the density of the discussion network each increased from weeks four (wave two) to twelve (wave three). The number of reported advice partners and discussion partners increased but the density values are depressed by the four non-participants who did not provide nominations and were not nominated due to their non-participation.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC: Ucinet for windows: software for social network analysis. 2002, Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies
  2. Brown R: Social psychology. 1965, New York: Free Press, Collier Macmillan

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 120

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Gesell, S. B., Barkin, S. L., & Valente, T. W.
Affiliations
  • Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Gesell, Sabina B
ORCID
Venue
Implementation Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2013-10-01
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
116-116
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1748-5908-8-116
PMC
PMC3851809
OpenAlex
W2137036188
Cited by
120
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
12.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Vanderbilt University (UL1‐TR000445)
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000445, DA027828)
  • U.S. Public Health Service (UL1TRR24975)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U01HL103620, U01HL03620)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (P30DA027828)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK092986)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR024975)
  • Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K23HD064700)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
Keywords
social network analysis, group intervention, intervention monitoring, group dynamics, social ties, network density, childhood obesity intervention, advice networks, formative assessment
MeSH terms
Adult, Feasibility Studies, Female, Group Processes, Humans, Male, Models, Theoretical, Obesity, Pilot Projects, Surveys and Questionnaires, Tennessee, 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