Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

BMJ Publishing Group, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 5(78), p. 303-310, 2024

DOI: 10.1136/jech-2023-220980

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Lack of consistency in measurement methods and semantics used for network measures in adolescent health behaviour studies using social network analysis: a systematic review

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

BackgroundSocial network analysis (SNA) is often used to examine how social relationships influence adolescent health behaviours, but no study has documented the range of network measures used to do so. We aimed to identify network measures used in studies on adolescent health behaviours.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review to identify network measures in studies investigating adolescent health behaviours with SNA. Measures were grouped into eight categories based on network concepts commonly described in the literature: popularity, position within the network, network density, similarity, nature of relationships, peer behaviours, social norms, and selection and influence mechanisms. Different subcategories were further identified. We detailed all distinct measures and the labels used to name them in included articles.ResultsOut of 6686 articles screened, 201 were included. The categories most frequently investigated were peer behaviours (n=201, 100%), position within the network (n=144, 71.6%) and popularity (n=110, 54.7%). The number of measurement methods varied from 1 for ‘similarity on popularity’ (within the ‘similarity’ category) to 28 for the ‘characterisation of the relationship between the respondent and nominated peers’ (within the ‘nature of the relationships’ category). Using the examples of ‘social isolation’, ‘group membership’, ‘individuals in a central position’ (within the ‘position within the network’ category) and ‘nominations of influential peers’ (sub within the ‘popularity’ category), we illustrated the inconsistent reporting and heterogeneity in measurement methods and semantics.ConclusionRobust methodological recommendations are needed to harmonise network measures in order to facilitate comparison across studies and optimise public health intervention based on SNA.