Social and organizational factors affecting implementation of evidence-informed practice in a public health department in Ontario: a network modelling approach

Implementation Science

Alexandra Marin³  Maureen Dobbins²  Reza Yousefi-Nooraie¹ 

[1] Health Research Methodology program, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada;School of Nursing and Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada;Department of Sociology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

关键词: Exponential random graph models;    Information-seeking;    Social network analysis;    Evidence-informed decision-making;   

Others  :  805311
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-5908-9-29

 received in 2013-06-28, accepted in 2014-02-21,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Objective

The objective of this study is to develop a statistical model to assess factors associated with information seeking in a Canadian public health department.

Methods

Managers and professional consultants of a public health department serving a large urban population named whom they turned to for help, whom they considered experts in evidence-informed practice, and whom they considered friends. Multilevel regression analysis and exponential random graph modeling were used to predict the formation of information seeking and expertise-recognition connections by personal characteristics of the seeker and source, and the structural attributes of the social networks.

Results

The respondents were more likely to recognize the members of the supervisory/administrative division as experts. The extent to which an individual implemented evidence-based practice (EBP) principles in daily practice was a significant predictor of both being an information source and being recognized as expert by peers. Friendship was a significant predictor of both information seeking and expertise-recognition connections.

Conclusion

The analysis showed a communication network segregated by organizational divisions. Managers were identified frequently as information sources, even though this is not a part of their formal role. Self-perceived implementation of EBP in practice was a significant predictor of being an information source or an expert, implying a positive atmosphere towards implementation of evidence-informed decision making in this public health organization. Results also implied that the perception of accessibility and trust were significant predictors of expertise recognition.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Yousefi-Nooraie et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Ciliska D, Thomas H, Buffett C: An introduction to evidence-informed public health and a compendium of critical appraisal tools for public health practice. National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools 2008. [http://www.nccmt.ca/publications/8/view-eng.html webcite]
• [2]Bowen S, Erickson T, Martens P, Crockett S: More than ‘using research’: the real challenges in promoting evidence- informed decision-making. Healthc Policy 2009, 4:87-102.
• [3]Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Lavis J, Hill S, Squires J: Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci 2012, 7:50. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Bosch M, van der Weijden T, Wensing M, Grol R: Tailoring quality improvement interventions to identified barriers: a multiple case analysis. J Eval Clin Pract 2007, 13:161-168.
• [5]Glasgow R, Emmons K: How Can We increase translation of research into practice? types of evidence needed. Annu Rev Public Health 2007, 28:413-433.
• [6]Robins G, Pattison P, Kalish Y, Lusher D: An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Soc Networks 2007, 29:173-191.
• [7]Lin N: Building a network theory of social capital. Connections 1999, 22:28-51.
• [8]Marsden PV, Friedkin NE: Network studies of social influence. Sociol Methods Res 1993, 22:127-151.
• [9]Valente T, Davis R: Accelerating the diffusion of innovations using opinion leaders. Ann Am Acad 1999, 566:55-67.
• [10]Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O: Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004, 82:581-629.
• [11]Smith R, Peterson B: ‘Psst … what Do You think?’ the relationship between advice prestige, type of advice, and academic performance. Commun Educ 2007, 56:278-291.
• [12]Yousefi-Nooraie R, Shakiba B, Mortaz-Hedjri S, Soroush A: Sources of knowledge in clinical practice in postgraduate medical students and faculty members: a conceptual map. J Eval Clin Pract 2007, 13:564-568.
• [13]Fattore G, Frosini F, Salvatore D, Tozzi V: Social network analysis in primary care: the impact of interactions on prescribing behaviour. Health Policy 2009, 92:141-148.
• [14]Borgatti S, Cross R: A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Manag Sci 2003, 49:432-445.
• [15]Wegner D: Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of group mind. In Theories of group behavior. Edited by Mullen B, Goethals G. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1987:185-208.
• [16]Blau P: Exchange and Power in Social Life. John Wiley. New York: John Wiley; 1964.
• [17]Ryan D, Marlow B, Fisher R: Educationally influential physicians: the need for construct validation. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2002, 22:160-169.
• [18]Erickson B: The relational basis of attitudes. In Social structures: A network approach. Edited by Wellman B, Berkowitz S. NY: Cambridge University Press; 1988:99-121.
• [19]Yuan Y, Carboni I, Ehrlich K: The impact of awareness and accessibility on expertise retrieval: A multilevel network perspective. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2010, 6:700-714.
• [20]West E, Barron D: Social and geographical boundaries around senior nurse and physician leaders: an application of social network analysis. Can J Nurs Res 2005, 37:132-148.
• [21]Lazega E, Mounier L, Snijders T, Tubaro P: Norms, status and the dynamics of advice networks: A case study. Soc Networks 2012, 34:323-332.
• [22]Cheshire C: Selective incentives and generalized information exchange. Soc Psychol Q 2007, 70:82-100.
• [23]Zheng K, Padman R, Krackhardt D, Johnson M, Diamond H: Social networks and physician adoption of electronic health records: insights from an empirical study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010, 17:328-336.
• [24]Granovetter M: The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 1973, 78:1360-1380.
• [25]Yuan Y, Carboni L, Ehrlich K: The impact of affective relationships and awareness on expertise retrieval: A multilevel network perspective on transactive memory theory. In The Academy of Managment Best Papers Proceedings. Montreal, Canada; 2010.
• [26]Gould R: The evolution of status hierarchies. Am J Sociol 2002, 107:1143-1178.
• [27]Coleman J: Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol 1988, 94:S95-S120.
• [28]Gouldner A: The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. Am Sociol Rev 1960, 25:161-178.
• [29]Dobbins M, Kyle R, Timmings C, Ward M, Cava M, Clarke C, Pietrusiak M, Akhtar-Danesh N, Jack S, Kothari A, Lemieux-Charles L, McKibbon A, Peirson L, Sibbald S: A Tailored, Collaborative Strategy to Develop Capacity and Facilitate Evidence-Informed Public Health Decision Making. Hamilton: Canadian Institutes of Health Research; 2009-2012.
• [30]Yousefi-Nooraie R, Dobbins M, Brouwers M, Wakefield P: Information seeking for making evidence-informed decisions: a social network analysis on the staff of a public health department in Canada. BMC Health Serv Res 2012, 12:118. BioMed Central Full Text
• [31]Hanneman R, Riddle M: Introduction to social network methods. 2005. [http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/nettext/ webcite]
• [32]Van Duijn M, Vermunt J: What is special about social network analysis? Methodol 2006, 2:2-6.
• [33]Robins G, Snijders T, Wang P, Handcock M, Pattison P: Recent developments in exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Soc Networks 2007, 29:192-215.
• [34]Huisman M, Duijn M: StOCNET: Software for the Statistical Analysis of Social Networks. Connections 2003, 25:7-26.
• [35]Wang P, Sharpe K, Robins G, Pattison P: Exponential random graph (p*) models for affiliation networks. Soc Networks 2009, 31:12-25.
• [36]Mazurek Melnyk B, Fineout-Overholt E, Mays M: The evidence-based practice beliefs and implementation scales: psychometric properties of Two New instruments. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs 2008, 5:208-216.
• [37]Wallen G, Mitchell S, Melnyk B, Fineout Overholt E, Miller Davis C, Yates J, Hastings C: Implementing evidence based practice: effectiveness of a structured multifaceted mentorship programme. J Adv Nurs 2010, 66:2761-2771.
• [38]Snijders T, Pattison P, Robins G, Handcock M: New specifications for exponential random graph models. Sociol Methodol 2006, 36:99-153.
• [39]West E, Barron D, Dowsett J, Newton J: Hierarchies and cliques in the social networks of health care professionals: Implications for the design of dissemination strategies. Soc Sci Med 1999, 48:633-646.
• [40]Coleman J, Katz E, Menzel H: Medical Innovation: A Diffusion Study. Bobbs-Merrill: Indianapolis; 1966.
• [41]French B, Thomas L, Baker B, Burton C, Pennington L, Roddam H: What can management theories offer evidence-baed practice? A comparative analysis of measurement tools for organisational context. Implement Sci 2009, 4:28. BioMed Central Full Text
• [42]Levin D, Cross R: The strength of weak ties You Can trust: the mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Manag Sci 2004, 50:1477-1490.
• [43]Rogers E: Diffusion of Innovations. 5th edition. New York: Free Press Glencoe; 2003.
• [44]Flodgren G, Parmelli E, Doumit G, Gattellari M, O’Brien M, Grimshaw J, Eccles M: Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011., (Issue 8) Art. No.: CD000125