Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: Social 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.
Methods: We 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.
Results: Out 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.
Conclusion: Robust methodological recommendations are needed to harmonise network measures in order to facilitate comparison across studies and optimise public health intervention based on SNA.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech-2023-220980 | DOI Listing |