↓ Skip to main content

What’s in a name? Tensions between formal and informal communities of practice among regional subspecialty cancer surgeons

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Health Sciences Education, June 2017
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
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
What’s in a name? Tensions between formal and informal communities of practice among regional subspecialty cancer surgeons
Published in
Advances in Health Sciences Education, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10459-017-9776-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon C. Kitto, Rachel E. Grant, Jennifer Peller, Carol-Anne Moulton, Steven Gallinger

Abstract

In 2007 the Cancer Care Ontario Hepatobiliary-Pancreatic (HPB) Community of Practice was formed during the wake of provincial regionalization of HPB services in Ontario, Canada. Despite being conceptualized within the literature as an educational intervention, communities of practice (CoP) are increasingly being adopted in healthcare as quality improvement initiatives. A qualitative case study approach using in-depth interviews and document analysis was employed to gain insight into the perceptions and attitudes of the HPB surgeons in the CoP. This study demonstrates how an engineered formal or idealized structure of a CoP was created in tension with the natural CoPs that HPB surgeons identified with during and after their training. This tension contributed to the inactive and/or marginal participation by some of the surgeons in the CoP. The findings of this study represent a cautionary tale for such future engineering attempts in two distinct ways: (1) a CoP in surgery cannot simply be created by regulatory agencies, rather they need to be supported in a way to evolve naturally, and (2) when the concept of CoPs is co-opted by governing bodies, it does not necessarily capture the power and potential of situated learning. To ensure CoP sustainability and effectiveness, we suggest that both core and peripheral members need to be more directly involved at the inception of the COP in terms of design, organization, implementation and ongoing management.

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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 58 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 14%
Researcher 7 12%
Other 5 8%
Professor 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 11 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 22%
Social Sciences 10 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Psychology 4 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 14 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 20 February 2018.
All research outputs
#14,638,490
of 24,950,117 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#567
of 930 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,012
of 322,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,950,117 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 930 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 322,659 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.