Individual and organisational interactions, learning and information sharing in a multi-country implementation-focused quality of care network for maternal, newborn and child health: a social network analysis ================================================================================================================================================================================================================ * Fidele Kanyimbu Mukinda * Nehla Djellouli * Kohenour Akter * Mithun Sarker * Asebe Amenu Tufa * Kondwani Mwandira * Gloria Seruwagi * Agnes Kyamulabi * Kasonde Mwaba * Tanya Marchant * Yusra R. Shawar * Mike English * Hilda Namakula * Geremew Gonfa * QCN Evaluation Group * Tim Colbourn * Mary V. Kinney ## Abstract The Network for Improving Quality of Care for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (QCN) was established to build a cross-country platform for joint-learning around quality improvement implementation approaches to reduce mortality. This paper describes and explores the structure of the QCN in four countries and at global level. Using Social Network Analysis (SNA), this cross-sectional study maps the QCN networks at global level and in four countries (Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi and Uganda) and assesses the interactions among actors involved. A pre-tested closed-ended structured questionnaire was completed by 302 key actors in early 2022 following purposeful and snowballing sampling. Data were entered into an online survey tool, and exported into Microsoft Excel for data management and analysis. This study received ethical approval as part of a broader evaluation. The SNA identified 566 actors across the four countries and at global level. Bangladesh, Malawi and Uganda had multiple-hub networks signifying multiple clusters of actors reflecting facility or district networks, whereas the network in Ethiopia and at global level had more centralized networks. There were some common features across the country networks, such as low overall density of the network, engagement of actors at all levels of the system, membership of related committees identified as the primary role of actors, and interactions spanning all types (learning, action and information sharing). The most connected actors were facility level actors in all countries except Ethiopia, which had mostly national level actors. The results reveal the uniqueness and complexity of each network assessed in the evaluation. They also affirm the broader qualitative evaluation assessing the nature of these networks, including composition and leadership. Gaps in communication between members of the network and limited interactions of actors between countries and with global level actors signal opportunities to strengthen QCN. Keywords * Quality of care network * Maternal * newborn and child health ## Introduction In 2017, a ‘global network’ approach was established to address the high burden of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity in low- and middle-income countries, called ‘The Network for Improving Quality of Care for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health’ (QCN) [1]. Originally established by nine countries (Bangladesh, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Malawi, Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda - later joined by Sierra Leone and Kenya), and supported by the World Health Organization (WHO), the H6 partnership and partners from all stakeholder groups, the network aimed to build a cross-country platform for joint-learning around quality improvement (QI) implementation approaches and shared health outcome goals [1]. QI networks facilitate the diffusion of information between groups of people and offer an opportunity for health professionals across boundaries to learn and apply QI methods. As more countries are initiating or strengthening QI collaboratives or networks to improve healthcare services and outcomes [2, 3], such as the QCN, there is need to systematically understand their composition including the actors engaged and their level of engagement. Global health networks are “webs of individuals and organizations” which emerge either as formal or informal entities that have the potential to evolve and influence policy and practice for health conditions or focus areas,[4] in this case maternal, perinatal, and newborn health [5]. Social Network Analysis (SNA) is one method that allows for the examination of these networks by considering how individual actors interact to form social structures [6]. Box 1 presents details about the methodology, key terms and measures for SNA [7, 8]. Two structural types of networks can be observed using SNA: dense networks with a higher degree of interconnectedness, and less dense networks with less connections between actors displaying structural holes [8]; the latter is characteristic of most health professional organisations where groups are working in silos [9]. In QI collaborative networks, there is focus on building the relationships and interactions between network actors, given that not all actors in the network are connected to each other (lower density) [10]. Collaborative relationships can, however, be hampered by actors’ professional or organisational culture, differences in professional power or knowledge that can affect effectiveness and efficiency of the services provided [11]. Box 1. Stakeholder Network Analysis overview Using mathematical tools and specialized software packages, SNA analyses can map entities, people or events (nodes) and their relationships (paths). The method involves asking respondents (egos) to identify key members (alters) in their network in relation to a question of interest, where responses to the questions may be binary, indicating the presence of a relationship, or on a continuum, reflecting the strength of the relationship [9]. SNA systematically maps the connections across individuals to show the patterns of relationships (ties) between actors (nodes), and explores their interactions and social structures. #### Key terms include * Node: Actors that make up the network (e.g. a single actor) * Edges: Lines (or ties) that connect the nodes together * Bridges: Actors that facilitate information to reach those that are isolated in the network * Brokers: Actors that facilitate the transfer of specialized knowledge between groups * Density: The extent to which all possible relations are actually present. It measures how the network is close to completeness or the level of connectedness in a network [12]. * Centrality: Number of connections (or ties) one node has to other nodes. If a node has many ties compared with actors, this indicates that this node has a central position in the network. * Degree centrality (In-degree): The number of immediate contacts (alters**) an actor (ego*) has in a network. It is measured by counting the number of alters adjacent to the ego. Central connectors will have higher degree centrality, while the peripheral actor will have the lowest degree centrality. * In-degree refers to the number of edges which are coming into a node, it indicates the more popular actors as receivers of ties [12]. * Weighted in-degree refers to the number of in-coming edges, weighted by the weight of each edge. * Ego* and Alters**: Ego in SNA is the focal node, the respondent. The nodes to whom ego is directly connected to are named ‘alters. Building QI networks is a continuous process and thus, it can go through the following four stages described by Valdis and Holley (13) that provide a typology of four distinct network structures: *(i) Scattered Fragments network, (ii) Single Hub-and-Spoke network, (iii) Multi-Hub Small-World Network, and (iv) Core/Periphery network*. In scattered fragment network, no connections exist or spontaneous connections are emerging between actors because no one takes the lead to build a network. In a single hub-and-spoke network, one central actor (hub) connects diverse individuals or groups based on his/her vision, social skills and links outside the network. Multiple hubs can work together in the same network (*Multi-Hub Small-World Network)*. A well-developed or mature network (core/periphery) is dense with high concentration of connections. SNA can facilitate to identify the need for shifting some connections to avoid network overload and rigidity in case of higher density [13]. This paper is part of a collection evaluating the emergence, legitimacy and effectiveness of the QCN (supplement 1 – 2-page summary of series of papers). In this paper, we explore and describe the structure of the QCN and map actors involved at different levels in the four QCN countries involved in the broader study (Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi and Uganda) by examining the quality of interactions between actors. We focus specifically on the following domains - information sharing, collective learning and taking collective action to improve the quality of care; these are related to the QCN strategic objectives of Learning, Action, Leadership and Accountability [14]. ## Methods ### Study Design A cross-sectional survey study was conducted using SNA to assess interactions among actors involved in the QCN at global level and in four countries at national and local levels: Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi and Uganda. In this paper, we focus on data from the SNA to estimate the density of the network as well as the (weighted – determined by the frequency of interaction) indegree centrality (Box 1) as two main measures of the network properties related to the level of connectedness and the actors’ role and position within the network. ### Study setting The setting of each network is different with respect to political engagement, and on-going and planned activities related to maternal, newborn and child health that could be leveraged or be a barrier to successful emergence, legitimacy and effectiveness of QCN [4, 15, 16]. Other papers in this collection, focused on QCN emergence [4] and QCN effectiveness [16] found the conditions to be most favourable for the network in Bangladesh, followed by Ethiopia, Uganda and Malawi. Supplementary file 1 - Country Context - summarizes the situations for each setting to add context to our work and explain the relevance of this study. ### Study population and sampling Specific to the SNA analysis, 302 respondents were selected among those involved in the QCN, as identified through the evaluation, [4, 15, 16] using purposeful and snowballing sampling approaches based on respondents’ expertise and membership in the network. They were from national and local levels in Bangladesh (n=47), Ethiopia (n=45), Malawi (n=85), and Uganda (n=113), as well as global level actors (n=12). Characteristics of respondents varied by network; for instance, there were less females in Ethiopia as compared to more in Malawi and Uganda (Table 1). In each country network, different units were considered to ensure a well-stratified sample including facility, sub-national and national level. Within these units, the sampling also took into consideration the primary role of actors in the network as well as their professional backgrounds. [Details on country sampling approach including snowballing which led to ∼200% response rates in Malawi and Uganda] View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/10/2023.03.09.23287066/T1) Table 1: Characteristics of respondents ### Data collection and analysis Data collection and analysis was done following the steps described by Blanchet and James (17). First, a closed-ended structured questionnaire (Supplementary file 2) was developed, pre-tested in collaboration with co-authors familiar with the local context. The first part of the questionnaire included questions on respondents’ basic characteristics such as sex, current job (cadre) and their role in the network specific to each country. The second part explored the domains of interaction networks within the QCN, starting by establishing the existence of interaction between actors, to include the frequency and the quality of interaction (Box 2). Box 2: Components of data collection tool #### Domains and related questions * Establishing interactions (Yes/No): Have you interacted with this individual on the Quality of Care Network? * Frequency of interactions: Please indicate how often you interact with this individual on matters related to the Quality of Care Network (never=1, annually=2, bi-annually=3, quarterly=4, monthly=5, weekly=6, daily=7) * Quality of interactions (yes/no): * Collective learning: Have you undertaken some learning activities related to Quality of Care Network with this individual? * Taking actions: Have you taken forward actions related to Quality of Care Network with this individual? * Information-sharing: Have you shared information related to the Quality of Care Network with this individual? A list of names (roster) was collated by co-authors involved in the evaluation from other aspects of the QCN evaluation. Each survey included a list of between 20-30 names of stakeholders by global, national, and subnational/facility level. Individuals completing the survey were asked a set of questions for each stakeholder on the list (Box 2) and could add names of other individuals who they interacted with around the QCN network. For each question, a list was presented to the respondents (egos) from which they had to select with whom they interacted with (alters) [18]. Respondents were allowed to add any names not included in the list. For the ‘frequency of interaction’, egos had to indicate with the corresponding number, how often they interacted with each alter. For the other questions, respondents were requested to indicate with a tick the people relevant to each question. To ensure high turnout of participation in the survey, in settings where internet connectivity was available, a web-based survey was used; where internet connection was reported as a problem, a paper-based approach was followed. Specific contextual adaption to the data collection approach was done for each country (Table 2). Dissemination of the survey included face-to-face questionnaires, email, announcements during meetings, and paper-based questionnaires disseminated to key stakeholders. View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/10/2023.03.09.23287066/T2) Table 2: Data collection process Data were entered into the online survey, using the UCL-based online survey tool Opinio, by the participants who completed the online survey or country specific co-authors who entered in the data on this platform from paper-based questionnaires (AAT, MS, CN, AK, HN, LC). The data were exported into Microsoft Excel® 2019 (Microsoft, USA) for data management and analysis. Two authors (FKM, MK) continuously crosschecked the data to correct inconsistencies and errors in consultation with other co-authors. The Excel matrices were saved as comma-delimited value (.csv) sheets and imported into Gephi V0.9.4 that was used for network visualisation and to generate directed sociographs that is, ties are indicated with a headed arrow. The direction of the arrow (edge) goes from the ego (arrow tail) point to the alter (arrowhead). Reciprocal relationships are displayed by a double-headed arrow. The graphs were generated by level of involvement and by the primary role of actors’ engagement in the QCN. An actor in the network was represented by a coded circle (node). The size of the node relates to the number of respondents who identified the node. ### Positionality, rigour, reflexivity data validation Two authors external to the QCN analysed the data (FKM, MK). Several meetings were held with the study team to discuss the findings after data analysis. Country data leads received a summary of the findings and three questions for reflection and interpretation for these meetings (See Supplement 3 – Data validation questions). ### Ethical considerations Ethical approval was obtained from University College London Research Ethics Committee (3433/003), BADAS Ethical Review Committee (ref: BADAS-ERC/EC/19/00274), Ethiopian Public Health Institute Institutional Review Board (ref: EPHI-IRB-240-2020), National Health Sciences Research Committee in Malawi (ref: 19/03/2264) and Makerere University Institutional Review Board (ref: Protocol 869). An information sheet detailing the survey was provided to all respondents; the survey questionnaire was completed after obtaining informed consent. All data is confidential and anonymised. ## Results ### Characteristics of respondents and composition of networks Across the five surveys, respondents identified 566 actors (or nodes) engaged with the QCN, ranging from 89 actors in Ethiopia to 211 actors in Uganda. The actors identified in these networks worked at various levels and had a range of roles related to the network (Fig 1), including frontline health workers, member of QCN related committees, technical or implementing partner. ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/03/10/2023.03.09.23287066/F1/graphic-5.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/10/2023.03.09.23287066/F1/graphic-5) ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/03/10/2023.03.09.23287066/F1/graphic-6.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/10/2023.03.09.23287066/F1/graphic-6) Figure 1: Characteristics of actors identified in the network Figure 1a: Level of actors identified in the networks Figure 1b: Primary role of actors in the network Respondents in Malawi and Uganda identified mostly facility level actors in their networks (81% and 64%, respectively); whereas respondents in Bangladesh and Ethiopia identified more national and global level actors. The global level respondents revealed about half of the actors identified were at global level (48%) and the other half among national actors across the four countries we included (15% Bangladesh, 14% Ethiopia, 12% Malawi, and 14% Uganda). Country level respondents mostly identified actors whose primary role in the network was frontline health workers (42% across all countries) or a member of a related QCN committee (30% across all countries). Ethiopia’s QCN network included more technical partners (29%). For the global level, technical partner was the primary role of actors in the network (50%) with most of these actors operating at national level. Among the country actors identified in the global network, the majority were either members of committees or implementing partners (46% and 36%, respectively) (Supplementary file 4 – More details). ### Network structure, density, and key actors The analyses revealed different types of networks (Table 3, Figure 2). The networks in Bangladesh, Malawi and Uganda were multiple-hub networks signifying multiple clusters of actors, reflected by the facility or district networks. The networks in Ethiopia and at global level were more centralized core/periphery structures with central actors at the core and other actors in the periphery. Table 3 provides further description of each network and the interactions among actors. All networks reflected the national hierarchies and the organization of the health system to some extent, with national actors often more central and serving as bridges or connectors to subnational actors, who served as connectors to facility level actors. These actors facilitate the transfer of specialised knowledge. However, national and subnational actors engaged facility actors more directly in some networks, such as Ethiopia and Malawi. View this table: [Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/10/2023.03.09.23287066/T3) Table 3: Network structures, density, central actors and interactions ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/03/10/2023.03.09.23287066/F2/graphic-9.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/10/2023.03.09.23287066/F2/graphic-9) ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/03/10/2023.03.09.23287066/F2/graphic-10.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/10/2023.03.09.23287066/F2/graphic-10) ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/03/10/2023.03.09.23287066/F2/graphic-11.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/10/2023.03.09.23287066/F2/graphic-11) ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/03/10/2023.03.09.23287066/F2/graphic-12.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/10/2023.03.09.23287066/F2/graphic-12) ![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/03/10/2023.03.09.23287066/F2/graphic-13.medium.gif) [](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/10/2023.03.09.23287066/F2/graphic-13) Figure 2: Network map – interactions by frequency Figure 2a: Bangladesh QCN Network Map Figure 2b: Ethiopia QCN Network Map Figure 2c: Malawi QCN Network Map Figure 2d: Uganda QCN Network Map Figure 2e: Global QCN Network Map The network density was very low for all networks. Less than 10% of all potential connections were present demonstrating a low level of interactions between and across levels in the QCN (Table 3, Appendix). The networks in Bangladesh (5% density) and Ethiopia (5% density) had higher density than the other three networks (Malawi: 2% density, Uganda: 2% density, Global: 3% density; Table 3). The central actors in each network varied (Table 3, Appendix). Actors with the highest weighted in-degree scores ranged from national level actors in Ethiopia, to subnational level actors in Bangladesh and Uganda, and facility level actors in Malawi. However, among the top 10 actors in each country network, facility level actors were dominant in all except Ethiopia, which had mostly national level actors. The primary role of these top actors across all countries was membership of a related committee. Implementing partner comprised the primary role for 23 actors (22%, Figure 1b) in the Bangladesh network. For the global network, the central actors identified worked primarily for the World Health Organization. The global actors identified by country networks were primarily global technical or implementation partners, including WHO, other UN agencies, academic organizations, and bilateral programs. Only a few respondents from the country surveys identified other country actors. For example, a Ugandan respondent added someone from the Tanzania Ministry of Health as part of their network. Regarding the nature of interactions, the majority actors in the country networks (∼90% in total) indicated that they interacted across all three domains (Table 3). There was also little variation across the different domains of interactions within each country network (learning, action, information sharing). For the global network, more actors interacted with information sharing (80%) as opposed to learning (73%) and taking forward actions (60%). The frequency of interactions varied by network (Figure 3). ![Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/03/10/2023.03.09.23287066/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/10/2023.03.09.23287066/F3) Figure 3: Frequency of interactions by network Depending on the nature of the respondents, three quarters (77%) of the actors in the Bangladesh network interacted on a regular basis (daily, weekly or monthly); whereas three-quarters of the actors in the Ethiopian network interacted less regularly (quarterly, biannually, or annually). The networks in Malawi and Uganda had a more equal spread on frequency of interactions. ## Discussion This study reveals the uniqueness and complexity of the five networks assessed for the QCN - four countries and global partners. There are some common features across the country networks, such as low overall density, engagement of actors at all levels of the system, similar roles of actors, and interactions spanning all types (learning, action and information sharing). The low network density indicates low levels of connection and interactions among QCN actors at various health system levels. Interactions were centralised around a few actors, but with little engagement and interactions among the majority of actors. Important distinctions between the networks include the varying frequency of interactions and structure nature, with three countries—Bangladesh, Uganda and Malawi— demonstrating multiple-hub networks. Overall, the results display the level of interactions between network members and substantiate the qualitative findings of the QCN evaluation, especially those pertaining to political and normative interactions between stakeholder organisations [15], and the pathways through which the network emerged from the global level, through national and sub-national levels [4]. While the four country networks report to have decentralized health systems, there are some variances when it comes to implementation, as reflected by Shawar and colleagues [4], and confirmed by this study. For instance, in Ethiopia where central network position was played by the national actors, qualitative findings showed that actors from the national level were the initiators and were perceived as owners of the network; by their position, they were responsible for connecting with local levels [15]. Similarly in Malawi, central actors were identified at facility level with some connection with sub-national and national level [15]. These facility actors played a central role in the identification of quality improvement issues, development and implementation of projects. The national level was found to be less prominent in Malawi than the other three countries despite the initial strong leadership of the Quality Management Directorate in the Malawi Ministry of Health and the launch of the QCN in Lilongwe, Malawi in Feb 2017 [4]. This variation could be because the Malawi sample was mainly comprised of facility level actors, or because the actors changed over time in Malawi. The Malawi results may have differed slightly if implementing partners who were described as playing significant roles in the provision of resources for activities, technical assistance and coordination were involved [15]. In Uganda, we also see a multi-hub network but with central actors from the national level bridging the sub-district and facility level actors facilitating, therefore, the flow of information within the network. This may reflect, not only the role national actors have had in driving the previous QI initiatives in Uganda, but also an active policy of decentralisation in the country [15]. In Bangladesh, the majority of actors identified in the SNA were from the facility and national level with national and sub-national level actors playing crucial roles to connect to facility actors, each other and global actors. This network emerged more quickly than the other countries since QCN was able to build into an existing platform demonstrated by the higher network density. Only one focal person from the national level linked with the global level [15]. At global level, the identified network through the SNA matched the observations of global meetings and interview data [14]. Much of the work of the network was coordinated by global level actors from the WHO, and technical and donor partner organisations, with national level actors in each country generally being recipients of information. National level actors also disseminated information to the global level and other partners during QCN webinars and during international meetings [19]. Despite the agreement between SNA findings and observations from the field, the results came with some surprises that could be linked, in part, to the way data was collected (e.g. not surveying enough actors at national level in Malawi). Globally, it was interesting to observe that the participants across countries did not report interaction with each other even among the national level stakeholders. Even though there was no specific question in this regard, names of other national actors were included on the survey under the “global actors” category. In Ethiopia, national level respondents mentioned the influence of COVID-19 on global interactions and reported limited online interactions as well. In Bangladesh, the presence of a lay counsellor among the Top 10 with highest in-degree centrality did not align with the other qualitative research findings [4, 15] The QCN intervention took place at multiple scales and that to some extent can explain variations in the patterns of interactions between countries. Pre-existing initiatives of implementing partners across these countries had a large influence on which facilities were chosen given prior work [15]. While this undoubtedly shaped the structure of the networks, the SNA results did not identify many implementation partners in the networks, with the exception of Bangladesh, though they are identified as key actors by the qualitative research [4, 15]. Additionally, the network patterns observed might, to some degree, reflect the political or administrative structures where there might be more decentralisation in some countries or a more centralised (command and control) form of administration in others. However, institutional and professional homophilies were reported as explanatory factors for networks formation among health professionals sharing similar interests or belonging to same organisation [20]. While respondents were asked about their professional backgrounds, there was inconsistent reporting about health cadres preventing further exploration. For example, we found many participants would identify as a specific health cadre (e.g. nurse or doctor) but their role was not clinical (e.g. Director in the Ministry of Health or Program Manager for an implementing partner). Our study found that the primary role of top actors across all countries was ‘member of a related committee’ and, overall, 30% of respondents reported this as their primary role in the network. This finding aligns with the broader study which found that quality improvement committees were a core output of the QCN at facility, subnational and national level [16] (common methods document – supplement 1). For example, in Bangladesh, there were seven committees: the Upazilla Health Complex Quality Improvement Committee (UHC-QIC), National QI Steering committee (N-QISC), National QI technical Committee (N-QITC), National Task Force Committee (N-TFC), District Quality Improvement Committee (D-QIC), District Hospital Quality Improvement Committee (DH-QIC), and the Upazilla Quality Improvement Committee (Uz-QIC). These committees were generally perceived to have multi-disciplinary representation, to be well supported by management and aligned with government plans, though some thought coordination needed improvement [16]. In Malawi, there were four committees: The Executive and Steering Committee, the Quality of Care Coordination Team, the Quality Improvement Support Team (QIST), and the Work Improvement Team (WIT). The work of the committees in Malawi was perceived less positively overall than in Bangladesh. The SNA provides a valuable tool to identify key actors and analyse their interactions in QI initiatives, such as the QCN; it can show the level of connectedness and the level of network fragmentation [21]. Applying the SNA to this study helps to identify which actors may be central to ensuring the QCN remains well-connected. There is a call for increased use of SNA for improvement by both the World Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group and the USAID’s Learning Lab [22-24]. This study is one of the few studies using SNA methodology to explore the structure and interactions of a quality of care network and is unique in its coverage of global, national and local levels of the network. Johnson and Chew (24) recently argued that “the use of SNA to improve program design, program implementation, and program evaluation and learning is quite limited” particularly in the field of international development. There are several limitations to this study. First, not everyone involved in the network participated in the survey. The snowballing approach used for including respondents yielded not only different sample sizes, but also an over-representation of people from similar organisational structures or level of care, and this may have skewed our findings on the composition of the country networks. Conducting the SNA after the qualitative studies in each country allowed teams to identify the key actors involved and approach them for inclusion, although not all were able to participate. The SNA results only reflect information from those who responded to survey; however, the representativeness of the findings from the five networks were validated via the country teams and the qualitative data. The wide variation between the five networks also signifies the uniqueness of each context. This limits the generalisability of the findings to other countries or QI networks, and emphasises the importance of context-specific case study research. ### Recommendations SNA can be of value to aid in planning for system improvement by identifying actors that can sustain the network beyond external support and facilitation. Interactions between countries could have happened more in QCN, and in general moving towards a denser core/periphery mature network in each country as well as global-national-local would be good for quality of care networks like QCN. Our broader work evaluating QCN found national level QCN structures were typically stronger than local structures – the periphery of the network was far weaker [15, 16]. Further work is required to strengthen the periphery of the network. This will require greater investment of time and resources at the local level and creating and strengthening bi-directional links from the centre to the periphery of the network. Furthermore, this requires increasing the frequency of interactions between and within global, national and local levels that may result in a denser/more mature network better able to facilitate improvement of quality of care. Future study should explore how to better do SNA in complex, multilevel, multi-country collaborative networks. As alluded to by McGlashan, de la Haye (25), in such complex networks, collaborations are often centralised on a few central committee members who receive the bulk of incoming ties compared to others. Therefore, support systems should be in place to allow frequent interactions among actors within and between countries. ## Conclusion Collaboration and interactions between cadres involved in a complex network, such as the QCN, are key ingredients for the success of such a network aiming to improve the quality of care. Our results reveal the uniqueness and complexity of each network assessed in the evaluation. They also affirm the broader qualitative evaluation assessing the nature of these networks, including composition and leadership. This study found gaps in communication between members of the network as well as limited interactions of actors between countries and with global level actors. To be effective, interactions should be strengthened between actors at all levels, particularly at the periphery that is the point of direct contact between the health system and the community receiving the services. Once established, interactive networks reduce systemic fragmentation, facilitate information sharing, learning, collective action and decision making [21]. International partners (such as WHO) can play a crucial role in strengthening individual and organisational interactions and building cohesion across levels and between countries. ## Data Availability All data is derived from a survey conducted with stakeholders who are in settings where only one individual holds a position at various levels and within institutions. Every care has been taken to ensure anonymity of the data in the submitted manuscript but the authors feel strongly that making data freely available would jeopardise the conditions of informed consent. We therefore request to be exempt from the requirement to make data available but have uploaded a detailed methods document. Thank you for your consideration. ## Acknowledgements We thank all respondents and stakeholders for their time and contributions toward making this work possible. The QCN Evaluation Group is: Nehla Djellouli, Kasonde Mwaba, Callie Daniels-Howell, Tim Colbourn (UCL Institute for Global Health, UK), Kohenour Akter, Fatama Khatun, Mithun Sarker, Abdul Kuddus, Kishwar Azad (BADAS-PCP Bangladesh), Kondwani Mwandira, Albert Dube, Gladson Monjeza, Rachel Magaleta, Zabvuta Moffolo, Charles Makwenda (Parent and Child Health Initiative, Malawi), Mary Kinney, Fidele Mukinda (independent researchers, South Africa), Mike English (Oxford University), Yusra Shawar, Will Payne, Jeremy Shiffman (Johns Hopkins University, USA), Kathy Lubowa, Agnes Kyamulabi, Hilda Namakula, Gloria Seruwagi (Makerere University, Uganda), Anene Tesfa, Asebe Amenu, Theodros Getachew, Geremew Gonfa (Ethiopia Public Health Institute, Ethiopia), Seblewengel Lemma, Tanya Marchant (LSHTM, UK). * Received March 9, 2023. * Revision received March 9, 2023. * Accepted March 10, 2023. * © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ## REFERENCES 1. 1.WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA. Quality, equity, dignity: the network to improve quality of care for maternal, newborn and child health – strategic objectives. Geneva: World Health Organization 2018. 2. 2.ØVretveit J, Bate P, Cleary P, Cretin S, Gustafson D, McInnes K, et al. Quality collaboratives: lessons from research. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11(4):345–51. doi: 10.1136/qhc.11.4.345. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoicWhjIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjExLzQvMzQ1IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDMvMTAvMjAyMy4wMy4wOS4yMzI4NzA2Ni5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 3. 3.Carmone AE, Kalaris K, Leydon N, Sirivansanti N, Smith JM, Storey A, et al. Developing a Common Understanding of Networks of Care through a Scoping Study. Health Syst Reform. 2020;6(2):1–13. doi: 10.1080/23288604.2020.1810921. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/23288604.2020.1810921&link_type=DOI) 4. 4.Shawar YR, Djellouli N, Payne W, Shiffman J, Colbourn T. Factors Shaping Network Emergence: A Cross-Country Comparison of Quality of Care Networks in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Uganda and Malawi Unpublished. 2023. 5. 5.Shiffman J, Schmitz HP, Berlan D, Smith SL, Quissell K, Gneiting U, et al. The emergence and effectiveness of global health networks: findings and future research. Health Policy Plan. 2016;31 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):i110–23. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czw012. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/heapol/czw012&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27067141&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2023.03.09.23287066.atom) 6. 6.Dempwolf CS, Lyles LW. The Uses of Social Network Analysis in Planning: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Planning Literature. 2012;27(1):3–21. doi: 10.1177/0885412211411092. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0885412211411092&link_type=DOI) 7. 7.Cunningham FC, Ranmuthugala G, Plumb J, Georgiou A, Westbrook JI, Braithwaite J. Health professional networks as a vector for improving healthcare quality and safety: a systematic review. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2012;21(3):239. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000187. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoicWhjIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjIxLzMvMjM5IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDMvMTAvMjAyMy4wMy4wOS4yMzI4NzA2Ni5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 8. 8.Siriwardena AN. Understanding quality improvement through social network analysis. Qual Prim Care. 2014;22(3):121–3. 9. 9.Braithwaite J. Between-group behaviour in health care: gaps, edges, boundaries, disconnections, weak ties, spaces and holes. A systematic review. BMC Health Services Research. 2010;10(1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-330. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1472-6963-10-330&link_type=DOI) 10. 10.Long JC, Cunningham FC, Braithwaite J. Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in collaborative network: a systematic review. BMC Health Services Research. 2013;13(158):1–13. 11. 11.Steihaug S, Johannessen AK, Adnanes M, Paulsen B, Mannion R. Challenges in Achieving Collaboration in Clinical Practice: The Case of Norwegian Health Care. Int J Integr Care. 2016;16(3):1–13. PubMed PMID: 28435416. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2023.03.09.23287066.atom) 12. 12.De Brún A, McAuliffe E. Social Network Analysis as a Methodological Approach to Explore Health Systems: A Case Study Exploring Support among Senior Managers/Executives in a Hospital Network. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(3):1–11. Epub 2018/03/14. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15030511. PubMed PMID: 29534038; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5877056. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/ijerph15030495&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29734745&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2023.03.09.23287066.atom) 13. 13.Valdis K, Holley J. Building smart communities through network weaving. Appalachian Center for Economic Networks. Available at: [http://www.orgnet.com/BuildingNetworks.pdf](http://www.orgnet.com/BuildingNetworks.pdf) Accessed on 8 August 2022; 2006. 14. 14.World Health Organization. Quality, equity, dignity: the network to improve quality of care for maternal, newborn and child health – strategic objectives. Geneva: WHO; 2018. 15. 15.Akter K, Shawar Y, Tesfa A, Daniels-Howell C, Seruwagi G, Kyamulabi A, et al. Influences on policy-formulation, decision-making, organisation and management for maternal, newborn and child health in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi and Uganda: the roles and legitimacy of a multi-country network Unpublished. 2023. 16. 16.Djellouli N, Shawar YR, Mwaba K, Akter K, Seruwagi G, Tufa AA, et al. Effectiveness of a multi-country implementation-focused network on quality of care: delivery of interventions and processes for improved maternal, newborn and child health outcomes. Unpublished. 2023. 17. 17.Blanchet K, James P. How to do (or not to do) … a social network analysis in health systems research. Health Policy and Planning. 2012;27(5):438–46. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czr055. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/heapol/czr055&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21840934&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2023.03.09.23287066.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000306930400009&link_type=ISI) 18. 18.Scott J, Carrington PJ. The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis. London: SAGE; 2011. 19. 19.Mwandira K, Lemma S, Akter K, Amenu Tufa A, Kyamulabi A, Nakidde C, et al. Do Networks facilitate innovation, learning and sharing? An evaluation Case studies fromof the Quality-of-Care Network (QCN) in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi, and Uganda. Unpublished. 2023. 20. 20.Mascia D, Di Vincenzo F, Iacopino V, Fantini MP, Cicchetti A. Unfolding similarity in interphysician networks: the impact of institutional and professional homophily. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-0748-9. PubMed PMID: 25890319. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12913-014-0652-8&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25603697&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2023.03.09.23287066.atom) 21. 21.Mukinda FK, Van Belle S, Schneider H. Local Dynamics of Collaboration for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health: A Social Network Analysis of Healthcare Providers and Their Managers in Gert Sibande District, South Africa. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021:1–11. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2021.106. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.34172/ijhpm.2021.106&link_type=DOI) 22. 22.Vaessen J, Hamaguchi K. Group WB, editor. [https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/blog/understanding-world-bank-groups-role](https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/blog/understanding-world-bank-groups-role): World Bank Independent Evaluation Group. 2017 8 October 2022. [cited 2022]. Available from: [https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/blog/understanding-world-bank-groups-role](https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/blog/understanding-world-bank-groups-role). 23. 23.Baker M. USAID Learning Lab [Internet]. USAID, editor. [https://usaidlearninglab.org/community/blog/demystifying-social-network-analysis-development-five-key-design-considerations](https://usaidlearninglab.org/community/blog/demystifying-social-network-analysis-development-five-key-design-considerations): USAID. 2019. [cited 2022]. 24. 24.Johnson EM, Chew R. Social Network Analysis Methods for International Development. RTI Press Publication. 2021:1–10. doi: 10.3768/rtipress.2021.rb.0026.2105. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3768/rtipress.2021.rb.0026.2105&link_type=DOI) 25. 25.McGlashan J, de la Haye K, Wang P, Allender S. Collaboration in Complex Systems: Multilevel Network Analysis for Community-Based Obesity Prevention Interventions. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):1–10. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-47759-4. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41598-019-40055-1&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30862893&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2F2023.03.09.23287066.atom)