IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v57y2003i12p2423-2434.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Networked for change? identifying obstetric opinion leaders and assessing their opinions on caesarean delivery

Author

Listed:
  • Kravitz, Richard L.
  • Krackhardt, David
  • Melnikow, Joy
  • Franz, Carol E.
  • Gilbert, William M.
  • Zach, Andra
  • Paterniti, Debora A.
  • Romano, Patrick S.

Abstract

The objective was to determine whether obstetric opinion leaders can be identified and to characterize them in terms of their demographic and professional characteristics and their attitudes toward caesarean delivery. In late 1998, we surveyed 527 obstetricians, 138 family physicians, and 80 certified nurse midwives (overall response rate, 57.8%) practicing in a stratified random sample of California hospitals with at least 1000 annual deliveries (n=52). Participants reported on demographic and professional characteristics and attitudes towards caesarean delivery; they also checked off those hospital colleagues from whom they had sought or would seek advice on labour and delivery. A composite measure of nomination frequency was used to characterize each respondent's degree of "opinion leadership". All analyses were corrected for the complex survey design. Using a nomination cutoff of 0.4 (0-1 scale), opinion leaders were identified in 31% of California hospitals; they were identified in 81% of hospitals using a cutoff of 0.2. Compared with their peers in the lowest fifth of the nomination distribution, clinicians in the top fifth were younger and more likely to be male, to speak English as a first language, to practice obstetrics, to have a maternal-foetal medicine subspecialty, and to practice in higher volume hospitals (p

Suggested Citation

  • Kravitz, Richard L. & Krackhardt, David & Melnikow, Joy & Franz, Carol E. & Gilbert, William M. & Zach, Andra & Paterniti, Debora A. & Romano, Patrick S., 2003. "Networked for change? identifying obstetric opinion leaders and assessing their opinions on caesarean delivery," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(12), pages 2423-2434, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:57:y:2003:i:12:p:2423-2434
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(03)00137-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chaohua Xiong & Kongzheng Liang & HanBin Luo & Ivan W. H. Fung, 2018. "Identification of Safety-Related Opinion Leaders among Construction Workers: Evidence from Scaffolders of Metro Construction in Wuhan, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-17, October.
    2. Huesch, Marco D., 2011. "Is blood thicker than water? Peer effects in stent utilization among Floridian cardiologists," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(12), pages 1756-1765.
    3. Lewis, Jenny M., 2006. "Being around and knowing the players: Networks of influence in health policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(9), pages 2125-2136, May.
    4. Meltzer, David & Chung, Jeanette & Khalili, Parham & Marlow, Elizabeth & Arora, Vineet & Schumock, Glen & Burt, Ron, 2010. "Exploring the use of social network methods in designing healthcare quality improvement teams," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(6), pages 1119-1130, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:57:y:2003:i:12:p:2423-2434. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.