| Title |
Knowledge mobilization in the context of health technology assessment: an exploratory case study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-4505-10-10 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Monique F Fournier |
| Abstract |
Finding measures to enhance the dissemination and implementation of their recommendations has become part of most health technology assessment (HTA) bodies' preoccupations. The Quebec government HTA organization in Canada observed that some of its projects relied on innovative practices in knowledge production and dissemination. A research was commissioned in order to identify what characterized these practices and to establish whether they could be systematized. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 4 | 27% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 13% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Mexico | 1 | 7% |
| Spain | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 73% |
| Scientists | 2 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Thailand | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 103 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 21 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 16% |
| Other | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 21 | 19% |
| Unknown | 18 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 17 | 15% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 28 | 25% |
| Unknown | 21 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 09 May 2013.
All research outputs
#2,930,484
of 23,630,563 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#426
of 1,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,604
of 162,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,630,563 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,238 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 162,950 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 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