↓ Skip to main content

Promoting physical therapists’ of research evidence to inform clinical practice: part 1 - theoretical foundation, evidence, and description of the PEAK program

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
Title
Promoting physical therapists’ of research evidence to inform clinical practice: part 1 - theoretical foundation, evidence, and description of the PEAK program
Published in
BMC Medical Education, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6920-14-125
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie K Tilson, Sharon Mickan

Abstract

There is a need for theoretically grounded and evidence-based interventions that enhance the use of research evidence in physical therapist practice. This paper and its companion paper introduce the Physical therapist-driven Education for Actionable Knowledge translation (PEAK) program, an educational program designed to promote physical therapists' integration of research evidence into clinical decision-making. The pedagogical foundations for the PEAK educational program include Albert Bandura's social cognitive theory and Malcolm Knowles's adult learning theory. Additionally, two complementary frameworks of knowledge translation, the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) and Knowledge to Action (KTA) Cycle, were used to inform the organizational elements of the program. Finally, the program design was influenced by evidence from previous attempts to facilitate the use of research in practice at the individual and organizational levels.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 11%
Other 6 7%
Other 24 26%
Unknown 15 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 28%
Environmental Science 3 3%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 14 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 27 October 2019.
All research outputs
#5,873,152
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#923
of 3,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,924
of 227,908 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#22
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,305 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 227,908 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 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 65% of its contemporaries.