| Title |
Ten principles of good interdisciplinary team work
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Resources for Health, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-4491-11-19 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Susan A Nancarrow, Andrew Booth, Steven Ariss, Tony Smith, Pam Enderby, Alison Roots |
| Abstract |
Interdisciplinary team work is increasingly prevalent, supported by policies and practices that bring care closer to the patient and challenge traditional professional boundaries. To date, there has been a great deal of emphasis on the processes of team work, and in some cases, outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 110 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 23 | 21% |
| United Kingdom | 10 | 9% |
| United States | 5 | 5% |
| Peru | 4 | 4% |
| Chile | 3 | 3% |
| Ireland | 3 | 3% |
| Australia | 2 | 2% |
| Mexico | 2 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Unknown | 50 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 88 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 10 | 9% |
| Scientists | 9 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,735 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | <1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Ireland | 2 | <1% |
| Japan | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1714 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 341 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 299 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 135 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 123 | 7% |
| Researcher | 100 | 6% |
| Other | 331 | 19% |
| Unknown | 406 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 372 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 266 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 164 | 9% |
| Psychology | 87 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 72 | 4% |
| Other | 340 | 20% |
| Unknown | 434 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 94. 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 26 October 2023.
All research outputs
#457,636
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Human Resources for Health
#19
of 1,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,103
of 206,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Resources for Health
#2
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,270 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
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 206,337 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.