| Title |
Who are the key players in a new translational research network?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-13-338 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Janet C Long, Frances C Cunningham, Peter Carswell, Jeffrey Braithwaite |
| Abstract |
Professional networks are used increasingly in health care to bring together members from different sites and professions to work collaboratively. Key players within these networks are known to affect network function through their central or brokerage position and are therefore of interest to those who seek to optimise network efficiency. However, their identity may not be apparent. This study using social network analysis to ask: (1) Who are the key players of a new translational research network (TRN)? (2) Do they have characteristics in common? (3) Are they recognisable as powerful, influential or well connected individuals? |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 50% |
| Mexico | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 3% |
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 1% |
| Mexico | 1 | 1% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 72 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 21% |
| Researcher | 14 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 23% |
| Unknown | 13 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 17 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 20% |
| Unknown | 13 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 10 September 2013.
All research outputs
#7,622,789
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,763
of 7,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,151
of 202,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#50
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 202,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.