↓ Skip to main content

Designing a knowledge translation mentorship program to support the implementation of evidence-based innovations

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
Title
Designing a knowledge translation mentorship program to support the implementation of evidence-based innovations
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0863-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna R. Gagliardi, Fiona Webster, Sharon E. Straus

Abstract

Healthcare professionals require training in knowledge translation (KT) to implement evidence-based healthcare innovations. Mentorship is an effective training strategy that could be used to develop KT capacity but it has largely been used to train clinicians. The purpose of this study was to explore preferences for KT mentorship design. Interviews were conducted with 54 Canadian researchers and research users who varied by profession, department, career stage and sex. Participants were asked about KT needs, views on mentorship as a strategy to develop KT capacity, and suggestions for program design. Grounded theory technique and thematic analysis were used to collect and analyse data. Participants uniformly expressed interest in mentorship over other forms of learning about KT because it would provide credible, tailored information when needed. A variety of options for program content, format and delivery were recommended, suggesting the need for flexibility according to KT needs. Leadership, infrastructure, culture change and incentives may also be needed to foster KT mentorship. Views were mixed on whether mentors should be KT experts or subject or clinical experts with KT experience, and embedded in, or external to organizations. These findings can be used to develop or evaluate KT mentoring programs. Further research is needed to evaluate different models in which the mentor may be an internal or external KT expert or subject expert with experience in KT, and establish the core curriculum of a training program specific to KT and how it could best be reinforced with mentoring.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
South Africa 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 87 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 22 24%
Unknown 21 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 15%
Social Sciences 10 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 24 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 May 2015.
All research outputs
#14,638,545
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,158
of 7,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,534
of 266,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#74
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 266,575 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.