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

Suresh K. Bhavnani,Weibin Zhang,Yong-Fang Kuo,Brian Downer,Timothy Reistetter,Rodney Hunter
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.276
2024-04-04
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
Abstract: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.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?