Review of social networks of professionals in healthcare settings—where are we and what else is needed?

Table 4 Network nodes in included reviews

Review	No. of studies reviewed	No. of studies of different network nodes
Review	No. of studies reviewed	Physician networks	Nurse networks	Other providers/ Interprofessional networks	Inter-organizational networks
1. Glegg et al. (2019)	27*	11	1	9	0
2. DuGoff et al. (2018)	49	----------------------------------------36----------------------------------------			13
3. Brunson et al. (2018)	189†	33	0	47	50
4. Sabot et al. (2017)	6	0	2	4	0
5. Poghosyan et al. (2016)	25	12	4	9	0
6. Mitchell et al. (2016)	4	0	3	1	0
7. Bae et al. (2015)	28	10	6	12‡	0
8. Benton et al. (2015)	43	0	43	0	0
9. Tasselli et al. (2014)	85	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
10. Cunningham et al. (2012)	26**	2	3	19	0
11. Chambers et al. (2012)	52	19	9	24††	0
12. Dunn et al. (2011)	3	0	0	3	0
13. Braithwaite et al. (2010)	13	2	1	10	0

Notes:
N/A: not applicable or not stated
* only 21 studies’ data sets were described;
†: clinical co-occurrence networks (n=59) were not explicit professional network so not presented here;
‡: 10 studies included multidisciplinary teams (interprofessional clinicians) and two studies focused uniquely on administrators or infection control specialists;
**: 24 of the 26 studies were directed at health professionals. Other providers/ Interprofessional networks (n=19) : multidisciplinary, 7; Mental health professionals, 5; Health service managers or administrative staff, 4; Varied health professionals, 2; Dementia care professionals,1;
††: teams or mixed groups of health professionals (17 studies); other health professionals including administrators, emergency planners and policy makers (seven studies)

ISSN: 1744-8603