| Literature DB >> 31727032 |
Oluwaseun Akinyemi1,2, Bronwyn Harris3,4, Mary Kawonga5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that social networks influence health behaviors, including the adoption of health innovations. This study explored the potential for early adopters of community health worker-delivered injectable contraceptives (CHWDIC) to influence the uptake of this innovation by women in their social networks.Entities:
Keywords: Community-based distribution of injectable contraceptives; Contraceptive policy; Density; Ego social network analysis; Egocentric networks; Homophily; Innovation diffusion; Nigeria; Personal networks; Policy analysis
Year: 2019 PMID: 31727032 PMCID: PMC6857216 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-7819-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Sociodemographic characteristics of actors in the networks (N = 220)
| Variable | Egos ( | Alters ( | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| Age group | ||||||
| < 30 | 5 | 25.0 | 77 | 38.5 | 82 | 37.3 |
| ≥ 30 | 15 | 75.0 | 123 | 61.5 | 138 | 62.7 |
| Marital status | ||||||
| Single | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2.0 | 4 | 1.8 |
| Married | 20 | 100 | 196 | 98.0 | 216 | 98.2 |
| Highest level of education | ||||||
| No formal education | 3 | 15.0 | 53 | 26.5 | 56 | 25.5 |
| Primary or secondary education | 12 | 60.0 | 109 | 54.5 | 121 | 55.0 |
| Tertiary education | 5 | 25.0 | 38 | 19.0 | 43 | 19.5 |
| Occupation | ||||||
| Informal | 9 | 45.0 | 119 | 59.9 | 128 | 58.2 |
| Formal occupations | 6 | 30.0 | 46 | 23.0 | 52 | 23.6 |
| Self-employed/employer | 5 | 25.0 | 35 | 17.5 | 40 | 18.2 |
| Ethnicity | ||||||
| Hausa | 16 | 80 | 161 | 80.5 | 177 | 80.5 |
| Othersa | 4 | 20.0 | 39 | 19.5 | 43 | 19.5 |
| Marriage type | ( | ( | ||||
| Monogamy | 11 | 55.0 | 105 | 53.6 | 116 | 53.7 |
| Polygamy | 9 | 45.0 | 91 | 46.4 | 100 | 46.3 |
| Use of contraceptives/family planning | ||||||
| Yes | 20 | 100 | 184 | 92.0 | 203 | 92.3 |
| No | 0 | 0 | 16 | 8.0 | 16 | 7.3 |
| Use of CBD injectable contraceptives | ||||||
| Yes | 20 | 100 | 165 | 82.5 | 185 | 84.1 |
| No | 0 | 0 | 35 | 17.5 | 35 | 15.9 |
aOthers include Igbo, Tangale, Tera, Waja
Age of egos and alters by network
| Network | Age of ego (years) | Age of alters (years) – mean (±SD) |
|---|---|---|
| SITE A (GOMBE) | ||
| SNA-A | 38.0 | 33.2 ± 3.7 |
| SNA-B | 40.0 | 34.9 ± 6.4 |
| SNA-C | 38.0 | 36.1 ± 6.2 |
| SNA-D | 35.0 | 32.4 ± 5.0 |
| SNA-E | 30.0 | 35.5 ± 4.8 |
| SNA-F | 37.0 | 36.6 ± 5.0 |
| SNA-G | 36.0 | 31.3 ± 2.3 |
| SNA-H | 36.0 | 33.0 ± 2.5 |
| SNA-I | 36.0 | 31.9 ± 1.9 |
| SNA-J | 34.0 | 32.5 ± 2.2 |
| SITE B (YEMALTU-DEBA) | ||
| SNA-K | 35.0 | 30.5 ± 5.5 |
| SNA-L | 37.0 | 29.8 ± 5.5 |
| SNA-M | 40.0 | 32.0 ± 6.6 |
| SNA-N | 23.0 | 28.6 ± 5.5 |
| SNA-O | 25.0 | 24.8 ± 5.5 |
| SNA-P | 25.0 | 22.7 ± 2.1 |
| SNA-Q | 32.0 | 24.2 ± 5.8 |
| SNA-R | 30.0 | 26.9 ± 9.6 |
| SNA-S | 22.0 | 27.7 ± 9.9 |
| SNA-T | 20.0 | 22.9 ± 4.2 |
Alters’ relationship with ego (N = 200)
| Variable | SITE A | SITE B | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| Relationship with ego | ||||||
| Relatives and close friends | 36 | 36.0 | 72 | 72.0 | 108 | 54.0 |
| Co-workers | 15 | 15.0 | 7 | 7.0 | 22 | 11.0 |
| Neighbour and acquaintance | 49 | 49.0 | 21 | 21.0 | 70 | 35.0 |
| Place of interaction with ego | ||||||
| Mosque/church | 19 | 19.0 | 13 | 13.0 | 32 | 16.0 |
| Market and workplace | 37 | 37.0 | 14 | 14.0 | 51 | 25.5 |
| Social visits | 44 | 44.0 | 73 | 73.0 | 117 | 58.5 |
| Frequency of social interaction with ego | ||||||
| At least once weekly | 22 | 22.0 | 54 | 54.0 | 76 | 38.0 |
| At least once monthly | 61 | 61.0 | 41 | 41.0 | 102 | 51.0 |
| At least once yearly | 17 | 17.0 | 5 | 5.0 | 22 | 11.0 |
Fig. 1Network map for SNA-C – the least dense (0.46) ego network
Fig. 2Network map for SNA-L showing a perfectly dense ego network
Key to node coding on sociograms
| Variable | Code | Label |
|---|---|---|
| Shape | Circle | Users of injectable contraceptives |
| Square | Non-users of injectable contraceptives | |
| Colour | Red | Ego |
| Pink | Relatives and close friends | |
| Blue | Close friends | |
| Black | Co-worker | |
| Green | Neighbour | |
| Size of node | Proportional to the degree centrality of actor | |
| Boxes around nodesa | Actors with the top three highest betweeness centrality values | |
aSociograms without boxes are those where all the actors have equal betweeness centrality values
Network density and degree centrality
| Network | No. of ties presenta | Density | Ego’s degree centrality | Average degree centrality | Ego nBetweeness | Network Average nBetweeness | CBD injectable contraceptive use |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SITE A (GOMBE) | |||||||
| SNA-A | 84 | 0.76 | 9 | 7.64 | 4.37 | 2.45 | 8 |
| SNA-B | 96 | 0.87 | 10 | 8.73 | 2.14 | 1.34 | 10 |
| SNA-C | 50 | 0.46 | 8 | 4.55 | 23.07 | 4.80 | 4 |
| SNA-D | 94 | 0.86 | 7 | 8.55 | 1.56 | 1.62 | 7 |
| SNA-E | 108 | 0.98 | 10 | 9.82 | 0.25 | 0.20 | 10 |
| SNA-F | 88 | 0.98 | 5 | 8.00 | 4.58 | 1.99 | 7 |
| SNA-G | 86 | 0.78 | 7 | 7.82 | 2.56 | 2.41 | 5 |
| SNA-H | 92 | 0.84 | 8 | 8.37 | 1.60 | 2.29 | 8 |
| SNA-I | 92 | 0.84 | 8 | 8.36 | 1.15 | 1.67 | 9 |
| SNA-J | 74 | 0.67 | 7 | 6.73 | 3.11 | 2.80 | 8 |
| SITE B (YEMALTU-DEBA) | |||||||
| SNA-K | 74 | 0.67 | 10 | 6.73 | 16.41 | 2.36 | 10 |
| SNA-L | 110 | 1.00 | 10 | 10.00 | 0 | 0 | 10 |
| SNA-M | 110 | 1.00 | 10 | 10.00 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| SNA-N | 76 | 0.69 | 10 | 6.91 | 9.78 | 2.80 | 10 |
| SNA-O | 82 | 0.75 | 10 | 7.45 | 10.63 | 2.05 | 10 |
| SNA-P | 56 | 0.51 | 10 | 5.09 | 30.56 | 2.95 | 10 |
| SNA-Q | 56 | 0.51 | 2 | 5.09 | 0 | 2.89 | 3 |
| SNA-R | 110 | 1.00 | 10 | 10.00 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| SNA-S | 96 | 0.87 | 10 | 8.73 | 2.64 | 1.30 | 10 |
| SNA-T | 80 | 0.73 | 10 | 7.27 | 8.52 | 2.48 | 9 |
aNumber of possible ties = 110
Fig. 3Network map for SNA-Q – showing a peripheral ego with low degree centrality
Group level E-I indicesa
| Network | Ethnicity | Age of actors | Education | Marriage type | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hausa | Others | < 30 | ≥30 | Less than secondary | At least secondary | Monogamous | Polygamous | |
| SITE A (GOMBE) | ||||||||
| SNA-A | 0.333 | 0.000 | −0.106 | 0.135 | 0.179 | 0.022 | −0.460 | 0.619 |
| SNA-B | −1.000 | – | 0.750 | −0.650 | 1.000 | −0.793 | 0.256 | 0.019 |
| SNA-C | −0.674 | 1.000 | 1.000 | −0.826 | 0.111 | −0.375 | 0.091 | −0.143 |
| SNA-D | −1.000 | – | 0.556 | − 0.373 | 0.500 | −0.226 | 0.163 | − 0.020 |
| SNA-E | −1.000 | – | 1.000 | −0.796 | − 0.333 | − 0.370 | − 0.017 | 0.184 |
| SNA-F | −1.000 | – | 1.000 | − 0.772 | 0.778 | − 0.543 | 0.273 | −0.227 |
| SNA-G | −0.795 | 1.000 | 0.778 | −0.529 | 0.368 | 0.083 | 0.714 | −0.667 |
| SNA-H | −0.534 | 0.789 | – | −1.000 | – | − 1.000 | 0.538 | −0.394 |
| SNA-I | −1.000 | – | 1.000 | −0.810 | – | −1.000 | 0.789 | −0.534 |
| SNA-J | 0.429 | −0.130 | – | −1.000 | 1.000 | −0.688 | 0.143 | −0.304 |
| SITE B (YEMALTU-DEBA) | ||||||||
| SNA-K | 0.478 | −0.333 | 0.714 | −0.600 | −1.000 | – | −0.073 | 0.152 |
| SNA-L | 0.400 | −0.200 | 0.400 | −0.200 | −0.600 | 0.800 | −0.600 | 0.800 |
| SNA-M | 0.600 | −0.400 | 0.400 | −0.200 | −0.600 | 0.800 | 0.600 | −0.400 |
| SNA-N | −1.000 | – | −0.333 | 0.143 | 0.273 | −0.023 | −0.167 | 0.429 |
| SNA-O | −1.000 | – | −0.377 | 0.810 | 0.667 | −0.310 | 0.077 | −0.023 |
| SNA-P | −1.000 | – | −1.000 | – | 0.200 | −0.333 | −0.500 | 0.250 |
| SNA-Q | −0.154 | 0.375 | −0.722 | 0.667 | 0.314 | −0.061 | −0.722 | 0.667 |
| SNA-R | −0.200 | 0.400 | −0.600 | 0.800 | 0.400 | −0.200 | −0.600 | 0.800 |
| SNA-S | −1.000 | – | −0.429 | 0.538 | 0.163 | −0.057 | −0.057 | 0.163 |
| SNA-T | −1.000 | – | −0.400 | 0.800 | −0.333 | 0.652 | −0.746 | 1.000 |
aE-I index is the number of ties external to the groups minus the number of ties that are internal to the group divided by the total number of ties. This value can range from 1 to −1
Fig. 4Network map for SNA-O showing a peripheral actor
Sources of homophily among actors according to specific characteristics (N = 220)
| Variable | Egos ( | Alters ( | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| Ethnicity | 20 | 100.0 | 175 | 87.5 | 195 | 88.6 |
| Injectable contraceptive use | 17 | 85.0 | 162 | 81.0 | 179 | 81.4 |
| Age | 18 | 90.0 | 158 | 79.0 | 176 | 80.0 |
| Education | 13 | 65.0 | 133 | 66.5 | 146 | 66.4 |
| Marriage type | 11 | 55.0 | 98 | 49.0 | 109 | 49.5 |