Abstract
Background
Physicians often rely on colleagues for new information and advice about the care of their patients.
Objective
Evaluate the network of influential discussions among primary care physicians in a hospital-based academic practice.
Design
Survey of physicians about influential discussions with their colleagues regarding women’s health issues. We used social network analysis to describe the network of discussions and examined factors predictive of a physician’s location in the network.
Subjects
All 38 primary care physicians in a hospital-based academic practice.
Measurements
Location of physician within the influential discussion network and relationship with other physicians in the network.
Results
Of 33 responding physicians (response rate = 87%), the 5 reporting expertise in women’s health were more likely than others to be cited as sources of influential information (odds ratio [OR] 6.81, 95% Bayesian confidence interval [CI] 2.25–23.81). Physicians caring for more women were also more often cited (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01–1.05 for a 1 percentage-point increase in the proportion of women patients). Influential discussions were more frequent among physicians practicing in the same clinic within the practice than among those in different clinics (OR 5.03, 95% CI 3.10–8.33) and with physicians having more weekly clinical sessions (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.54 for each additional session).
Conclusions
In the primary care practice studied, physicians obtained information from colleagues with greater expertise and experience as well as colleagues who were accessible based on location and schedule. It may be possible to organize practices to promote more rapid dissemination of high-quality evidence-based medicine.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Haug JD. Physicians’ preferences for information sources: a meta-analytic study. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1997;85:223–32.
Bates DW, Gawande AA. Improving safety with information technology. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2526–34.
Cullen R. The medical specialist: information gateway or gatekeeper for the family practitioner. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1997;85:348–55.
Weinberg AD, Ullian L, Richards WD, Cooper P. Informal advice- and information-seeking between physicians. J Med Educ. 1981;56:174–80.
Keating NL, Zaslavsky AM, Ayanian JZ. Physicians’ experiences and beliefs regarding informal consultation. JAMA. 1998;280:900–4.
Kuo D, Gifford DR, Stein MD. Curbside consultation practices and attitudes among primary care physicians and medical subspecialists. JAMA. 1998;280:905–9.
Gabbay J, le May A. Evidence based guidelines or collectively constructed “mindlines?” Ethnographic study of knowledge management in primary care. BMJ. 2004;329:1013.
Covell DG, Uman GC, Manning PR. Information needs in office practice: are they being met? Ann Intern Med. 1985;103:596–9.
Gruppen LD, Wolf FM, Van Voorhees C, Stross JK. Information-seeking strategies and differences among primary care physicians. Mobius. 1987;7:18–26.
Williamson JW, German PS, Weiss R, Skinner EA, Bowes F. 3rd. Health science information management and continuing education of physicians. A survey of U.S. primary care practitioners and their opinion leaders. Ann Intern Med. 1989;110:151–60.
Coleman JS, Katz E, Menzel H. Medical Innovation. A Diffusion Study. Indianapolis, IN: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc; 1966.
Lomas J, Enkin M, Anderson GM, Hannah WJ, Vayda E, Singer J. Opinion leaders vs audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines. Delivery after previous cesarean section. JAMA. 1991;265:2202–7.
Soumerai SB, McLaughlin TJ, Gurwitz JH, et al. Effect of local medical opinion leaders on quality of care for acute myocardial infarction: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;279:1358–63.
Gifford DR, Holloway RG, Frankel MR, et al. Improving adherence to dementia guidelines through education and opinion leaders. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131:237–46.
Keating NL, Zaslavsky AM, Ayanian JZ. Physicians’ reports of focused expertise in clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15:417–20.
Borgatti SP. ed. NetDraw: Graph Visualization Software. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies; 2002.
Van Duijn M, Snijders TAB, Zijlstra B. P2: a random effects model with covariates for directed graphs. Statistica Neerlandica. 2004;58:234–54.
Lazega E, Van Duijn M. Position in formal structure, personal characteristics, and choices of advisors in a law firm: a logistic regression model for dyadic network data. Soc. Netw. 1997;19:375–97.
Lurie N, Slater J, McGovern P, Ekstrum J, Quam L, Margolis K. Preventive care for women. Does the sex of the physician matter? N Engl J Med. 1993;329:478–82.
Henderson JT, Weisman CS. Physician gender effects on preventive screening and counseling: an analysis of male and female patients’ health care experiences. Med Care. 2001;39:1281–92.
Gruppen LD. Physician information seeking: improving relevance through research. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1990;78:165–72.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Primary Care Research and Education Fund.
Conflict of Interest
None disclosed.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Keating, N.L., Ayanian, J.Z., Cleary, P.D. et al. Factors Affecting Influential Discussions Among Physicians: A Social Network Analysis of a Primary Care Practice. J GEN INTERN MED 22, 794–798 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0190-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0190-8