ArticleBMC health services research2026
When clinicians group together: a scoping review of clustering in patient-sharing networks.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImprovements in patient safety and quality of care can be achieved by improvements in clinicians’ teamwork, coordination, and communication. Growing research examines the structure and dynamics of clinician networks using social network analysis. Such networks can have clusters of healthcare professionals within them, but systematized knowledge on these clusters is lacking. Our goal was to review the literature on determinants and characteristics of healthcare professional clustering in patient-sharing networks and their associations with patient outcomes.
methodsWe performed a scoping review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We searched Medline and EMBASE in January 2021 and again in May 2025. We included English-language peer-reviewed studies that examined the clustering of healthcare professionals in patient-sharing networks (either based on regional or institutional boundaries or cohesive relations), used network analysis techniques, and reported at least one patient outcome. After rounds of title and abstract and full-text screening, through pairwise independent review, we extracted study information such as study design and setting, population, patient-sharing definition, network measures, clustering definition, health outcomes, and reported associations. We descriptively summarized the characteristics of studies, methods of clustering, and outcome measures, and synthesized the association between clustering and health outcomes.
resultsThe thirteen eligible studies varied considerably in definitions and measures of patient-sharing relations, definitions and structural measures of network clusters, settings, study population, and health outcomes. Three studies found that busier physician networks (i.e., networks with more connections among physicians) are associated with worse health outcomes. Five studies reported that better-connected physician networks (more cohesive or more persistent) are associated with better health outcomes.
conclusionMost existing studies were exploratory and lacked explicit a priori hypotheses regarding the impact of clustering on outcomes. Our findings suggest potential associations between cluster size, cohesiveness, and the outcomes, warranting further hypothesis-driven research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.