Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 794–798 | Cite as

Factors Affecting Influential Discussions Among Physicians: A Social Network Analysis of a Primary Care Practice

  • Nancy L. Keating
  • John Z. Ayanian
  • Paul D. Cleary
  • Peter V. Marsden
Original Article

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.

KEY WORDS

consultation and referral primary care communication physician behavior 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Primary Care Research and Education Fund.

Conflict of Interest

None disclosed.

References

  1. 1.
    Haug JD. Physicians’ preferences for information sources: a meta-analytic study. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1997;85:223–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bates DW, Gawande AA. Improving safety with information technology. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2526–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cullen R. The medical specialist: information gateway or gatekeeper for the family practitioner. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1997;85:348–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weinberg AD, Ullian L, Richards WD, Cooper P. Informal advice- and information-seeking between physicians. J Med Educ. 1981;56:174–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keating NL, Zaslavsky AM, Ayanian JZ. Physicians’ experiences and beliefs regarding informal consultation. JAMA. 1998;280:900–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuo D, Gifford DR, Stein MD. Curbside consultation practices and attitudes among primary care physicians and medical subspecialists. JAMA. 1998;280:905–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gabbay J, le May A. Evidence based guidelines or collectively constructed “mindlines?” Ethnographic study of knowledge management in primary care. BMJ. 2004;329:1013.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Covell DG, Uman GC, Manning PR. Information needs in office practice: are they being met? Ann Intern Med. 1985;103:596–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gruppen LD, Wolf FM, Van Voorhees C, Stross JK. Information-seeking strategies and differences among primary care physicians. Mobius. 1987;7:18–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coleman JS, Katz E, Menzel H. Medical Innovation. A Diffusion Study. Indianapolis, IN: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc; 1966.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keating NL, Zaslavsky AM, Ayanian JZ. Physicians’ reports of focused expertise in clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15:417–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Borgatti SP. ed. NetDraw: Graph Visualization Software. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies; 2002.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Duijn M, Snijders TAB, Zijlstra B. P2: a random effects model with covariates for directed graphs. Statistica Neerlandica. 2004;58:234–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gruppen LD. Physician information seeking: improving relevance through research. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1990;78:165–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nancy L. Keating
    • 1
    • 2
  • John Z. Ayanian
    • 1
    • 2
  • Paul D. Cleary
    • 3
  • Peter V. Marsden
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of General Medicine and Primary CareBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Health Care PolicyHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  3. 3.Yale School of Public HealthNew HavenUSA
  4. 4.Department of SociologyHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations