Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Published 4 December 2008, doi:10.1136/bmj.a2533
Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a2533
Ethan Cohen-Cole, financial economist1, Jason M Fletcher, assistant professor2
1 Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA 02210, USA, 2 Yale University, School of Public Health, 60 College Street, New Haven, CT 06510
Correspondence to: J Fletcher jason.fletcher{at}yale.edu
Design Statistical analysis common in network studies, such as logistic regression analysis, controlled for own and friends lagged health status. Analyses controlled for environmental confounders.
Setting Subsamples of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health).
Participants 4300 to 5400 male and female adolescents who nominated a friend in the dataset and who were both longitudinally surveyed.
Measurements Health outcomes, including headache severity, acne severity, and height self reported by respondents in 1994-5, 1995-6, and 2000-1.
Results Significant network effects were observed in the acquisition of acne, headaches, and height. A friends acne problems increased an individuals odds of acne problems (odds ratio 1.62, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 2.89). The likelihood that an individual had headaches also increased with the presence of a friend with headaches (1.47, 0.93 to 2.33); and an individuals height increased by 20% of his or her friends height (0.18, 0.15 to 0.26). Each of these results was estimated by using standard methods found in several publications. After adjustment for environmental confounders, however, the results become uniformly smaller and insignificant.
Conclusions Researchers should be cautious in attributing correlations in health outcomes of close friends to social network effects, especially when environmental confounders are not adequately controlled for in the analysis.
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
what's wrong with significance tests? Another comment on the role of statistical methods