↓ Skip to main content

Assessing citation networks for dissemination and implementation research frameworks

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#18 of 1,820)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
221 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
Title
Assessing citation networks for dissemination and implementation research frameworks
Published in
Implementation Science, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0628-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ted A. Skolarus, Todd Lehmann, Rachel G. Tabak, Jenine Harris, Jesse Lecy, Anne E. Sales

Abstract

A recent review of frameworks used in dissemination and implementation (D&I) science described 61 judged to be related either to dissemination, implementation, or both. The current use of these frameworks and their contributions to D&I science more broadly has yet to be reviewed. For these reasons, our objective was to determine the role of these frameworks in the development of D&I science. We used the Web of Science™ Core Collection and Google Scholar™ to conduct a citation network analysis for the key frameworks described in a recent systematic review of D&I frameworks (Am J Prev Med 43(3):337-350, 2012). From January to August 2016, we collected framework data including title, reference, publication year, and citations per year and conducted descriptive and main path network analyses to identify those most important in holding the current citation network for D&I frameworks together. The source article contained 119 cited references, with 50 published articles and 11 documents identified as a primary framework reference. The average citations per year for the 61 frameworks reviewed ranged from 0.7 to 103.3 among articles published from 1985 to 2012. Citation rates from all frameworks are reported with citation network analyses for the framework review article and ten highly cited framework seed articles. The main path for the D&I framework citation network is presented. We examined citation rates and the main paths through the citation network to delineate the current landscape of D&I framework research, and opportunities for advancing framework development and use. Dissemination and implementation researchers and practitioners may consider frequency of framework citation and our network findings when planning implementation efforts to build upon this foundation and promote systematic advances in D&I science.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 221 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 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 146 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 15%
Student > Master 22 15%
Other 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 10%
Researcher 13 9%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 39 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 15%
Social Sciences 19 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 10%
Psychology 10 7%
Engineering 10 7%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 51 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 126. 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 30 August 2017.
All research outputs
#336,952
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#18
of 1,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,068
of 327,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#2
of 38 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 1,820 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 327,695 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.