Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T11:46:52.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

303 Social Network Analysis of Patient Sharing Among Providers: Implications for Analyzing Disparities in Cancer Screening

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2024

Suresh K. Bhavnani
Affiliation:
School of Public and Population Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA
Weibin Zhang
Affiliation:
School of Public and Population Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA
Yong-Fang Kuo
Affiliation:
School of Public and Population Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA
Brian Downer
Affiliation:
School of Public and Population Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA
Timothy Reistetter
Affiliation:
School of Health Professionals, University of Texas Health, San Antonio, TX, USA
Rodney Hunter
Affiliation:
College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Texas Southern University, TX, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Many providers share patients resulting in networks where clinical information is exchanged, and which can impact the quality and efficiency of care. Here we analyzed the network properties of a primary care service area (PCSA) in Harris County TX, motivating our ongoing analysis of how they are associated with disparities in cancer screening. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Data.All providers (n=731, Medicare 2018) from the PCSA with the most providers in Harris County TX, with gender, specialty, and the number of shared patients. Method. Modeled the data as a network consisting of provider nodes, connected in pairs by edges if they shared >11 patients (an empirically-determined threshold). Analyzed the network structure using (1) modularity maximization and its significance to identify densely-connected communities; (2) degree centralization to measure whether a few providers shared many patients, and betweenness centralization to measure whether a few providers connected densely-connected communities; and (3) chi-squared to measure if pairs of connected providers tended to be of the same gender compared to disconnected provider pairs. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The results (Fig. 1, http://www.skbhavnani.com/DIVA/Images/Fig-1-SNA-Network.jpg [http://www.skbhavnani.com/DIVA/Images/Fig-1-SNA-Network.jpg]) revealed a fragmented network with 120 small components (connected subnetworks, not part of any larger connected subnetwork), and 1 large component. The large component (n=244) had strong and significant modularity (Q=0.73, z=53.13, P<.001) with communities of providers that shared more patients than expected by chance; low degree centralization (dc=0.11) suggesting that no provider dominated patient sharing, in addition to high and significant betweenness centralization (bc=0.5, P<.01) suggesting that a few providers were responsible for connecting the densely-connected communities; and a significant gender bias (X2=10.05, df=1, P< .01) among those that shared patients, versus those that did not. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The analysis revealed a specific type of vulnerability (betweenness) for network fragmentation, and a gender bias in how patients were shared. These results motivated our ongoing analysis on how the network properties are associated with disparity in cancer screening within PCSAs across Texas.

Type
Informatics and Data Science
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. The Association for Clinical and Translational Science