6–12 months and >12 months. This study is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO: CRD42015023541. We identified 26,503 reports; after exclusion, 37 studies, conducted between 1996 and 2018 from 11 countries, were eligible for analysis, with a total of 53,891 participants (mean age 32.4 years [SD 12.7]; 45.5% females). A range of study designs were included: 27 used RCT/cluster RCT designs, and 10 used other study designs. Eligible studies addressed a variety of health outcomes, in particular sexual health and substance use. Social network interventions showed a significant intervention effect compared with comparator groups for sexual health outcomes. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was 1.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–2.11; I2 = 76%) for sexual health outcomes at ≤6 months and OR 1.51 (95% CI 1.27–1.81; I2 = 40%) for sexual health outcomes at >6–12 months. Intervention effects for drug risk outcomes at each time point were not significant. There were also significant intervention effects for some other health outcomes including alcohol misuse, well-being, change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and smoking cessation. Because of clinical and measurement heterogeneity, it was not appropriate to pool data on these other behaviours in a meta-analysis. For sexual health outcomes, prespecified subgroup analyses were significant for intervention approach (p 6 months) for sexual health outcomes. Intervention effects for drug risk outcomes at each time point were not significant. There were also significant intervention effects for some other health outcomes including alcohol misuse, well-being, change in HbA1c, and smoking cessation. Ruth Hunter and colleagues report a systematic review and meta-analysis of behavioural interventions employing social networks, along with outcomes.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:"> 6–12 months and >12 months. This study is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO: CRD42015023541. We identified 26,503 reports; after exclusion, 37 studies, conducted between 1996 and 2018 from 11 countries, were eligible for analysis, with a total of 53,891 participants (mean age 32.4 years [SD 12.7]; 45.5% females). A range of study designs were included: 27 used RCT/cluster RCT designs, and 10 used other study designs. Eligible studies addressed a variety of health outcomes, in particular sexual health and substance use. Social network interventions showed a significant intervention effect compared with comparator groups for sexual health outcomes. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was 1.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–2.11; I2 = 76%) for sexual health outcomes at ≤6 months and OR 1.51 (95% CI 1.27–1.81; I2 = 40%) for sexual health outcomes at >6–12 months. Intervention effects for drug risk outcomes at each time point were not significant. There were also significant intervention effects for some other health outcomes including alcohol misuse, well-being, change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and smoking cessation. Because of clinical and measurement heterogeneity, it was not appropriate to pool data on these other behaviours in a meta-analysis. For sexual health outcomes, prespecified subgroup analyses were significant for intervention approach (p 6 months) for sexual health outcomes. Intervention effects for drug risk outcomes at each time point were not significant. There were also significant intervention effects for some other health outcomes including alcohol misuse, well-being, change in HbA1c, and smoking cessation. Ruth Hunter and colleagues report a systematic review and meta-analysis of behavioural interventions employing social networks, along with outcomes.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:">
Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1002890.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social network interventions for health behaviours and outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ruth F Hunter
  • Kayla de la Haye
  • Jennifer M Murray
  • Jennifer Badham
  • Thomas W Valente
  • Mike Clarke
  • Frank Kee
Abstract
Background: There has been a growing interest in understanding the effects of social networks on health-related behaviour, with a particular backdrop being the emerging prominence of complexity or systems science in public health. Social network interventions specifically use or alter the characteristics of social networks to generate, accelerate, or maintain health behaviours. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate health behaviour outcomes of social network interventions. Methods and findings: We searched eight databases and two trial registries from 1990 to May 28, 2019, for English-language reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and before-and-after studies investigating social network interventions for health behaviours and outcomes. Trials that did not specifically use social networks or that did not include a comparator group were excluded. We screened studies and extracted data from published reports independently. The primary outcome of health behaviours or outcomes at ≤6 months was assessed by random-effects meta-analysis. Secondary outcomes included those measures at >6–12 months and >12 months. This study is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO: CRD42015023541. We identified 26,503 reports; after exclusion, 37 studies, conducted between 1996 and 2018 from 11 countries, were eligible for analysis, with a total of 53,891 participants (mean age 32.4 years [SD 12.7]; 45.5% females). A range of study designs were included: 27 used RCT/cluster RCT designs, and 10 used other study designs. Eligible studies addressed a variety of health outcomes, in particular sexual health and substance use. Social network interventions showed a significant intervention effect compared with comparator groups for sexual health outcomes. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was 1.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–2.11; I2 = 76%) for sexual health outcomes at ≤6 months and OR 1.51 (95% CI 1.27–1.81; I2 = 40%) for sexual health outcomes at >6–12 months. Intervention effects for drug risk outcomes at each time point were not significant. There were also significant intervention effects for some other health outcomes including alcohol misuse, well-being, change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and smoking cessation. Because of clinical and measurement heterogeneity, it was not appropriate to pool data on these other behaviours in a meta-analysis. For sexual health outcomes, prespecified subgroup analyses were significant for intervention approach (p 6 months) for sexual health outcomes. Intervention effects for drug risk outcomes at each time point were not significant. There were also significant intervention effects for some other health outcomes including alcohol misuse, well-being, change in HbA1c, and smoking cessation. Ruth Hunter and colleagues report a systematic review and meta-analysis of behavioural interventions employing social networks, along with outcomes.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Ruth F Hunter & Kayla de la Haye & Jennifer M Murray & Jennifer Badham & Thomas W Valente & Mike Clarke & Frank Kee, 2019. "Social network interventions for health behaviours and outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-25, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002890
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002890
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002890
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002890&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002890?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Maya Murmann & Anna Cooper Reed & Mary Scott & Justin Presseau & Carrie Heer & Kathryn May & Amy Ramzy & Chau N. Huynh & Becky Skidmore & Vivian Welch & Julian Little & Kumanan Wilson & Melissa Brouwe, 2023. "Exploring COVID‐19 education to support vaccine confidence amongst the general adult population with special considerations for healthcare and long‐term care staff: A scoping review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), September.
    2. Tyler Prochnow & Christina Amo & Megan S. Patterson & Katie M. Heinrich, 2022. "I CrossFit; Do You? Cross-Sectional Peer Similarity of Physical Activity Behavior in a Group High Intensity Functional Training Setting," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-9, April.
    3. Samuel F Rosenblatt & Jeffrey A Smith & G Robin Gauthier & Laurent Hébert-Dufresne, 2020. "Immunization strategies in networks with missing data," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-21, July.
    4. Michael Stellefson & Samantha R. Paige & Beth H. Chaney & J. Don Chaney, 2020. "Evolving Role of Social Media in Health Promotion: Updated Responsibilities for Health Education Specialists," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-7, February.
    5. Sabina B. Gesell & Shari L. Barkin & Edward H. Ip & Santiago J. Saldana & Evan C. Sommer & Thomas W. Valente & Kayla de la Haye, 2021. "Leveraging Emergent Social Networks to Reduce Sedentary Behavior in Low-Income Parents With Preschool-Aged Children," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, July.
    6. Sekhar, Deepa L. & Gebremariam, Acham & Waxmonsky, James G. & Molinari, Alissa M. & Rosen, Perri & Clark, Sarah J., 2023. "Parent opinion on peer support programs to promote adolescent mental health," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    7. Victor O. Akande & Timothy O. Fawehinmi & Robert A.C. Ruiter & Stef P.J. Kremers, 2021. "Healthy Dietary Choices and Physical Activity Participation in the Canadian Arctic: Understanding Nunavut Inuit Perspectives on the Barriers and Enablers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-13, January.
    8. Yiheng Wang & Felipe Navarro Nicoletti, 2023. "Entertainment Education and Citizens’ Participation in COVID-19 Pandemic Response: A Case Study of Chinese Citizens on Social Media," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-17, September.
    9. Campbell Foubister & Esther M F van Sluijs & Anna Vignoles & Paul Wilkinson & Edward C F Wilson & Caroline H D Croxson & Helen Elizabeth Brown & Kirsten Corder, 2021. "The school policy, social, and physical environment and change in adolescent physical activity: An exploratory analysis using the LASSO," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-14, April.
    10. Diana Tsoy & Danijela Godinic & Qingyan Tong & Bojan Obrenovic & Akmal Khudaykulov & Konstantin Kurpayanidi, 2022. "Impact of Social Media, Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) on the Intention to Stay at Home during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-32, June.
    11. Hiroyasu Inoue & Yohsuke Murase & Yasuyuki Todo, 2021. "Do economic effects of the anti-COVID-19 lockdowns in different regions interact through supply chains?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-19, July.
    12. Jennifer M. Murray & Sharon C. Sánchez-Franco & Olga L. Sarmiento & Erik O. Kimbrough & Christopher Tate & Shannon C. Montgomery & Rajnish Kumar & Laura Dunne & Abhijit Ramalingam & Erin L. Krupka & F, 2023. "Selection homophily and peer influence for adolescents’ smoking and vaping norms and outcomes in high and middle-income settings," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-35, December.
    13. Fu, Lin & Zhou, Yueyue & Zheng, Hao & Cheng, Jin & Fan, Yue & Eli, Buzohre & Liu, Zhengkui, 2024. "Effectiveness of a brief social network intervention for depressive symptoms among Chinese adolescents under major chronic stress," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    14. McMillan, Cassie & Schaefer, David R., 2021. "Comparing targeting strategies for network-based adolescent drinking interventions: A simulation approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    15. Erik O. Kimbrough & Erin L. Krupka & Rajnish Kumar & Jennifer M. Murray & Abhijit Ramalingam & Sharon Sánchez-Franco & Olga L. Sarmiento & Frank Kee & Ruth F. Hunter, 2024. "On the stability of norms and norm-following propensity: a cross-cultural panel study with adolescents," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(2), pages 351-378, April.
    16. Sabina B. Gesell & Kayla de la Haye & Evan C. Sommer & Santiago J. Saldana & Shari L. Barkin & Edward H. Ip, 2020. "Identifying Social Network Conditions that Facilitate Sedentary Behavior Change: The Benefit of Being a “Bridge” in a Group-based Intervention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-13, June.
    17. Yoshinori Fujiwara & Kumiko Nonaka & Masataka Kuraoka & Yoh Murayama & Sachiko Murayama & Yuta Nemoto & Motoki Tanaka & Hiroko Matsunaga & Koji Fujita & Hiroshi Murayama & Erika Kobayashi, 2022. "Influence of “Face-to-Face Contact” and “Non-Face-to-Face Contact” on the Subsequent Decline in Self-Rated Health and Mental Health Status of Young, Middle-Aged, and Older Japanese Adults: A Two-Year ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-10, February.
    18. Eisenberg, Marla E. & Wall, Melanie M. & Larson, Nicole & Arlinghaus, Katherine R. & Neumark-Sztainer, Dianne, 2021. "Do emerging adults know what their friends are doing and does it really matter? Methodologic challenges and associations of perceived and actual friend behaviors with emerging adults’ disordered eatin," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 284(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pmed00:1002890. 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: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    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.