| Literature DB >> 27825383 |
Bruna de Paula Fonseca E Fonseca1, Fabio Zicker2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The analysis of scientific networks has been applied in health research to map and measure relationships between researchers and institutions, describing collaboration structures, individual roles, and research outputs, and helping the identification of knowledge gaps and cooperation opportunities. Driven by dengue continued expansion in Brazil, we explore the contribution, dynamics and consolidation of dengue scientific networks that could ultimately inform the prioritisation of research, financial investments and health policy.Entities:
Keywords: Dengue; Policy and planning; Research networks; Social network analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27825383 PMCID: PMC5101674 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-016-0151-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Res Policy Syst ISSN: 1478-4505
Theoretical definition of social network analysis indicators presented herein and their meaning in this study
| Indicator | Definition | Meaning in this study |
|---|---|---|
| Network size | ||
| Nodes | Actors within a network | Organisations in the co-authorship network |
| Links | Relationships or connections between actors | Co-authorship between organisations |
| Network connectivity/cohesion | ||
| Component | Subset of nodes in a network in which all of them are linked to each other, directly or indirectly | Group of organisations that were connected to one another through joint publications |
| Giant component | Largest component existing in the network | Largest group of organisations connected through joint publications; the larger the giant component size, or percentage of institutions included within it, the more interconnected the network is |
| Average degree | Average number of direct connections the network nodes have | Average number of collaborations per organisation; the higher the average degree, the more connected the network is |
| Average clustering coefficient | Measures the extent to which the nodes in the network establish a perfect cluster, in which all the nodes are interconnected | The extent of full connectivity between organisations; a high average clustering coefficient indicates that more institutions are interconnected within the network |
| Average path length | Average smallest number of connections that a node needs in order to reach any other in the network | The average distance between organisations; the lower the average path length, the more direct is the connection between organisations |
| Centrality/significance of nodes in the network | ||
| Degree centrality | Number of a node’s direct connections | A measure of how many direct contacts an organisation has Organisations with high degree centrality are usually focal points of communication in the network |
| Eigenvector centrality | Reflects the quantity and quality of the direct connections a node has | A measure of high connectivity and links to other highly connected organisations; higher values indicate influential organisations in the network |
| Betweeness centrality | Indicates to what extent a node acts as a “bridge” between the various other nodes in the network, which would otherwise be disconnected | A measure of how much an organisation mediates the connection between other institutions; an organisation with high betweeness centrality has the potential to control the flow of information in the network |
| Closeness centrality | Measures how close a node is to all other nodes in the network | A measure of the extent to which an organisation can directly reach others; organisations with high closeness centrality can quickly obtain and communicate information in the network |
Fig. 1General profile of dengue research involving Brazilian organisations. a Annual number of published articles on dengue by Brazilian organisations and their collaborators (1995–2014). b Distribution of dengue articles according to the subject area of research. c Type of Brazilian and international organisations involved in the dengue research networks
Fig. 2Evolution of the Brazilian collaborative networks on dengue research, 1995–2014. Organisation links were mapped based on the affiliations of the authors of scientific papers. Each node represents one organisation and two organisations were considered connected if their authors shared the authorship of a paper. The thickness of the links indicates the frequency of collaboration between two nodes. The node colour indicates whether the organisation is Brazilian (orange) or from abroad (blue)
Evolution of the dengue research networks involving Brazilian organisations
| Indicator | 1995–1999 | 2000–2004 | 2005–2009 | 2010–2014 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of nodes (organisations) | 36 | 99 | 254 | 447 |
| Number of links | 72 | 156 | 1004 | 2024 |
| Number of components | 4 | 15 | 17 | 12 |
| Giant component size | 91.7 % | 77.8 % | 90.2 % | 96.6 % |
| Average degree | 4.3 | 3.8 | 8.6 | 9.35 |
| Average clustering coefficient | 0.782 | 0.753 | 0.822 | 0.800 |
| Average path length | 2.67 | 3.44 | 2.77 | 2.85 |
Fig. 3Thematic trends in dengue research involving Brazilian organisations (1995–2014). Dengue-specific articles involving Brazilian organisations were broadly classified according to their subject of research
Most influential Brazilian organisations in the dengue research networks
| 1995–1999 | 2000–2004 | 2005–2009 | 2010–2014 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | CI | Organisations | CI | Organisations | CI | Organisations | CI |
| Fiocruz | 4 | Fiocruz | 5 | USP | 7 | Fiocruz | 4 |
| IEC | 9 | FUNASA | 9 | Fiocruz | 12 | USP | 15 |
| FUNASA | 15 | USP | 10 | UFCE | 31 | UFMG | 16 |
CI centrality index, Fiocruz Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Ministry of Health, IEC Evandro Chagas Institute, USP University of São Paulo, FUNASA National Health Foundation, Ministry of Health, UFCE Federal University of Ceará, UFMG Federal University of Minas Gerais
Dengue research networks excluding key central Brazilian organisations
| Indicators | 1995–1999 | 2000–2004 | 2005–2009 | 2010–2014 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of nodes (organisations) | 33 | 96 | 251 | 444 |
| Number of links | 39 | 102 | 811 | 1663 |
| Number of components | 11 | 35 | 33 | 29 |
| Giant component size | 36.4 % | 17.7 % | 80.5 % | 90.8 % |
| Average degree | 2.36 | 3.29 | 6.46 | 8.10 |
| Average clustering coefficient | 0.680 | 0.665 | 0.784 | 0.759 |
| Average path length | 2.33 | 2.49 | 3.62 | 3.49 |
Fig. 4Characteristics of the international collaboration in Brazilian dengue research networks (1995–2014). a Number and percentage of papers published in collaboration with international partners. b Number of Brazilian and international organisations included in the research networks. c Thematic trends in international collaborations
Fig. 5International collaboration in dengue research networks involving Brazilian organisations. Country links were mapped based on the affiliations of the authors of published papers. Each node represents one country and two countries were considered connected if their authors shared the authorship of a paper. The thickness of links indicates the frequency of collaboration between two nodes. Countries that have strongest collaborations with Brazil were named