↓ Skip to main content

Helping fluid teams work: A research agenda for effective team adaptation in healthcare

Overview of attention for article published in Translational Behavioral Medicine, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
Title
Helping fluid teams work: A research agenda for effective team adaptation in healthcare
Published in
Translational Behavioral Medicine, October 2012
DOI 10.1007/s13142-012-0177-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wendy L Bedwell, P Scott Ramsay, Eduardo Salas

Abstract

Although membership changes within teams are a common practice, research into this phenomenon is relatively nascent (Summers et al.; Acad Manag J 55:314-338, 2012). The small literature base, however, does provide insight into skills required for effective adaptation. The purpose of this effort is to provide a brief research synopsis, leading to research hypotheses about medical team training. By generalizing previous scientific findings regarding skills required for effective membership adaptation in different kinds of teams, we posit mechanisms whereby teamwork training might also support adaptation among medical teams (Burke et al.; Qual & Saf Health Care 13:i96-i104, 2004 and Salas et al.; Theor Issues Ergon Sci 8:381-394, 2007). We provide an overview of the membership change literature. Drawing upon literature from both within and outside of the medical domain, we suggest a framework and research propositions to aid in research efforts designed to determine the best content for helping to create adaptable medical teams through team training efforts. For effective adaptation, we suggest ad hoc teams should be trained on generalizable teamwork skills, to share just "enough" and the "right" information, to engage in shared leadership, and to shift from explicit to implicit coordination. Our overarching goal was to present what is known from the general research literature on successful team adaptation to membership changes, and to propose a research agenda to evaluate whether findings generalize to member changes in medical teams.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Unknown 89 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 21%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 6 7%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 20 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 22%
Business, Management and Accounting 14 15%
Psychology 12 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 22 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 October 2012.
All research outputs
#13,294,883
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#596
of 988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,427
of 175,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 175,904 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.