
Participatory interest groups and the development of residency support networks
Mona Aghaei, Mahnaz Sharifi, Zahra Tabatabaee, Fatemeh Abdi-Masouleh, Reza Yousefi Nooraie
BMC Medical Education
Network design
Nodes
second-year medical residents and faculty members involved in the residency program
Ties
directed nominations for clinical advice, educational advice, and personal support in resident-only and resident-faculty networks
Methods
The study compared density, reciprocity, in-degree centralization and individual outcomes before and after the interest groups, used 5,000 bootstrap samples for network change, and fitted mixed models for repeated wellbeing measures.
Source: BMC Medical Education
Reviewed summary

Seventeen second-year residents were invited into four participatory interest groups with faculty during a seven-month program. Resident and resident-faculty networks for clinical advice, educational advice, and personal support were measured before and after; active participants showed selected wellbeing and tie gains. The design connects participatory organizational work with distinct support relations and illustrates how network measures can reveal whether a program broadens access to advice rather than only whether attendees liked it.
Seven residents and six faculty were active in the groups; active residents improved on personal accomplishment and learning-environment measures, and active faculty developed more ties, while several network changes were uneven. The program involved 17 residents without a control group, participation was self-selected, only a subset remained active, and faculty and resident exposure varied. Small samples and concurrent changes prevent causal attribution, while nomination counts do not measure advice quality.
SNA
How SNA was used
The study defined second-year medical residents and faculty members involved in the residency program as nodes and directed nominations for clinical advice, educational advice, and personal support in resident-only and resident-faculty networks as ties. The study compared density, reciprocity, in-degree centralization and individual outcomes before and after the interest groups, used 5,000 bootstrap samples for network change, and fitted mixed models for repeated wellbeing measures.
Source
BMC Medical Education, 22, Article 367
DOI: 10.1186/s12909-022-03440-5


