Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T11:14:55.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simulating network intervention strategies: Implications for adoption of behaviour

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2018

JENNIFER BADHAM Open the ORCID record for JENNIFER BADHAM [Opens in a new window] ,
FRANK KEE  and
RUTH F. HUNTER
JENNIFER BADHAM
Affiliation:
UKCRC Centre of Excellence (Northern Ireland), Queens University Belfast, University Rd, Belfast BT7 1NN, United Kingdom (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])
FRANK KEE
Affiliation:
UKCRC Centre of Excellence (Northern Ireland), Queens University Belfast, University Rd, Belfast BT7 1NN, United Kingdom (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])
RUTH F. HUNTER
Affiliation:
UKCRC Centre of Excellence (Northern Ireland), Queens University Belfast, University Rd, Belfast BT7 1NN, United Kingdom (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study uses simulation over real and artificial networks to compare the eventual adoption outcomes of network interventions, operationalized as idealized contagion processes with different sets of seeds. While the performance depends on the details of both the network and behaviour adoption mechanisms, interventions with seeds that are central to the network are more effective than random selection in the majority of simulations, with faster or more complete adoption throughout the network. These results provide additional theoretical justification for utilizing relevant network information in the design of public health behavior interventions.

Keywords

social contagionnetwork interventionssimulation
Type
Research Article
Information
Network Science , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 265 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

An, W., & Liu, Y.-H. (2016). Keyplayer: An R package for locating key players in social networks. The R Journal, 8 (1), 257–268. R package version 1.0.1.Google Scholar
Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286 (5439), 509–512.Google Scholar
Berkman, L. F., Kawachi, I., & Glymour, M. M. (eds). (2014). Social epidemiology. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bernard, H. R., Killworth, P. D., & Sailer, L. (1980). Informant accuracy in social network data IV: A comparison of clique-level structure in behavioral and cognitive network data. Social Networks, 2 (3), 191–218.Google Scholar
Borgatti, S. P. (2006). Identifying sets of key players in a social network. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 12 (1), 21–34.Google Scholar
Campbell, R., Starkey, F., Holliday, J., Audrey, S., Bloor, M., Parry-Langdon, N., Hughes, R., & Moore, L. (2008). An informal school-based peer-led intervention for smoking prevention in adolescence (ASSIST): A cluster randomised trial. The Lancet, 371 (9624), 15951602.Google Scholar
Centola, D., & Macy, M. (2007). Complex contagion and the weakness of long ties. American Journal of Sociology, 113 (3), 702–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costenbader, E., & Valente, T. W. (2003). The stability of centrality measures when networks are sampled. Social Networks, 25 (4), 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csardi, G., & Nepusz, T. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems, 1695.Google Scholar
Erdős, P., & Rényi, A. (1960). On the evolution of random graphs. Publications of the Institute of Mathematics, Hungarian Academy of Science, 5, 17–60.Google Scholar
Kapferer, B. (1972). Strategy and transaction in an African factory: African workers and Indian management in a Zambian town. Manchester, UK, Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, J.A., & Stevenson, L.Y. (1995). Opinion leader HIV Prevention Training Manual. Milwaukee, WI: Center for AIDS Intervention Research, Medical College of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Kim, D. A., Hwong, A. R., Stafford, D., Hughes, D. A., OMalley, A. J., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2015). Social network targeting to maximise population behaviour change: A cluster randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 386 (9989), 145–153.Google Scholar
Latkin, C. A., & Knowlton, A. R. (2015). Social network assessments and interventions for health behavior change: A critical review. Behavioral Medicine, 41 (3), 90–97.Google Scholar
Leskovec, J., & Faloutsos, C. (2006). Sampling from large graphs. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, pp. 631–636.Google Scholar
MacRae, D. (1960). Direct factor analysis of sociometric data. Sociometry, 23 (4), 360–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molloy, M., & Reed, B. (1995). A critical point for random graphs with a given degree sequence. Random structures & algorithms, 6 (2–3), 161–180.Google Scholar
Noh, J. D., & Rieger, H. (2004). Random walks on complex networks. Physical Review Letters, 92 (Mar), 118701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perkins, J. M., Subramanian, S.V., & Christakis, N. A. (2015). Social networks and health: A systematic review of sociocentric network studies in low- and middle-income countries. Social Science & Medicine, 125 (Jan), 60–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2015). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Shakya, H. B., et al. (2017). Exploiting social influence to magnify population-level behaviour change in maternal and child health: Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of network targeting algorithms in rural Honduras. BMJ Open, 7 (3), e012996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thiele, J. C., & Grimm, V. (2010). NetLogo meets R: Linking agent-based models with a toolbox for their analysis. Environmental Modelling & Software, 25 (8), 972–974.Google Scholar
Valente, T. W. (1996). Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Social Networks, 18 (1), 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valente, T. W. (2012). Network interventions. Science, 337 (6090), 49–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valente, T. W., & Davis, R. L. (1999). Accelerating the diffusion of innovations using opinion leaders. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566 (1), 55–67.Google Scholar
Valente, T. W., Palinkas, L. A., Czaja, S., Chu, K.-H., & Brown, C. H. (2015). Social network analysis for program implementation. PLoS ONE, 10 (6), e0131712.Google Scholar
Wickham, H. (2009). Ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag New York.Google Scholar
Wickham, H., & Francois, R. (2016). Dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. R package version 0.5.0.Google Scholar
Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/. Tech. rept. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
Zachary, W. W. (1977). An information flow model for conflict and fission in small groups. Journal of Anthropological Research, 33 (4), 452–473.Google Scholar
Zhang, J., Shoham, D. A., Tesdahl, E., & Gesell, S. B. (2015). Network interventions on physical activity in an afterschool program: An agent-based social network study. American Journal of Public Health, 105 (S2), S236–S243.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Badham et al. supplementary material

Badham et al. supplementary material 1

Download Badham et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 503.7 KB