Table 2. Differences in heterogeneity and network distribution by category.
| Key Influencer Category | P-Value2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SC influencers n = 26 | IC influencers n = 30 | Company influencers n = 7 | ||
| One-step | ||||
| Heterogeneity Network distribution,% | 61.2 ± 21.7a | 51 ± 23.5a | 80.6 ± 15.0b | 0.006 |
| Member of the SC | 38.8 ± 21.7 | 29.4 ± 21.8 | 26.1 ± 23.5 | 0.245 |
| IC | 43.1 ± 18.8 | 49.0 ± 23.5 | 54.6 ± 33.5 | 0.603 |
| Companies | 18.1 ± 16.2 | 21.6 ± 23.01 | 19.4 ± 15.0 | 0.773 |
| Two-step | ||||
| Heterogeneity Network distribution,% | 55.7 ± 5.07a | 50.9 ± 12.0b | 85.3 ± 3.03c | <0.001 |
| Members of the SC | 44.3 ± 5.07a | 39.2 ± 9.89b | 39.5 ± 11.6a,b | 0.008 |
| IC | 41.2 ± 8.39a | 49.1 ± 12.0b | 0.008 | |
| Companies | 14.5 ± 4.84a | 11.7 ± 5.05b | 0.042 | |
SC, scientific community. IC, interested citizen. Values are mean ± SD. In overall network: SC, n = 769; IC, n = 1350; Company, n = 355.
1 skewed with median = 11.3 and IQR = 14.2.
2Differences determined by Kruskal Wallis Test. Values with different letters are significantly different, determined by Dunn-Bonferroni Posthoc test.