↓ Skip to main content

Improvement Science Meets Improvement Scholarship: Reframing Research for Better Healthcare

Overview of attention for article published in Health Care Analysis, December 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 (#16 of 326)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
53 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Improvement Science Meets Improvement Scholarship: Reframing Research for Better Healthcare
Published in
Health Care Analysis, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10728-017-0354-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alan Cribb

Abstract

In this editorial essay I explore the possibilities of 'improvement scholarship' in order to set the scene for the theme of, and the other papers in, this issue. I contrast a narrow conception of quality improvement (QI) research with a much broader and more inclusive conception, arguing that we should greatly extend the existing dialogue between 'problem-solving' and 'critical' currents in improvement research. I have in mind the potential for building a much larger conversation between those people in 'improvement science' who are expressly concerned with tackling the problems facing healthcare and the wider group of colleagues who are engaged in health-related scholarship but who do not see themselves as particularly interested in quality improvement, indeed who may be critical of the language or concerns of QI. As one contribution to that conversation I suggest that that the increasing emphasis on theory and rigour in improvement research should include more focus on normative theory and rigour. The remaining papers in the issue are introduced including the various ways in which they handle the 'implicit normativity' of QI research and practice, and the linked theme of combining relatively 'tidy' and potentially 'unruly' forms of knowledge.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 14%
Student > Master 4 11%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 12 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Social Sciences 4 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 11 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 02 March 2022.
All research outputs
#1,249,327
of 25,724,500 outputs
Outputs from Health Care Analysis
#16
of 326 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,907
of 449,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Care Analysis
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,724,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 326 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 449,954 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them