Results
In the intervention and control groups, 64.5% and 31.9% of the members, respectively, engaged in communication, and 1,736 and 273 records, respectively, were obtained. Regarding ego network, the doctor showed the largest network in the intervention group, and the size of the intervention group's network was twice that of the control group; the number of ties in the intervention group was nine times that of the control group. Fourteen and four parents in the intervention and control group played an active role, respectively. Regarding centrality, all WeChat groups were loose and multiple centers existed. Regarding subgroup cohesion, the intervention group had 28 cliques with 27 members, and the control group had 4 cliques with 4 members. For structural hole, 23.7% and 7.5% members in the intervention and control group actively participated in interactions, respectively, having strong control and influence over other parents; 69.2% and 59.1% members in the intervention and control group, respectively, had values of < 1.000, showing that they had strong ability to cross-jump structural holes.