| Title |
A New Taxonomy for Stakeholder Engagement in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-012-2037-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas W. Concannon, Paul Meissner, Jo Anne Grunbaum, Newell McElwee, Jeanne-Marie Guise, John Santa, Patrick H. Conway, Denise Daudelin, Elaine H. Morrato, Laurel K. Leslie |
| Abstract |
Despite widespread agreement that stakeholder engagement is needed in patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR), no taxonomy exists to guide researchers and policy makers on how to address this need. We followed an iterative process, including several stages of stakeholder review, to address three questions: (1) Who are the stakeholders in PCOR? (2) What roles and responsibilities can stakeholders have in PCOR? (3) How can researchers start engaging stakeholders? We introduce a flexible taxonomy called the 7Ps of Stakeholder Engagement and Six Stages of Research for identifying stakeholders and developing engagement strategies across the full spectrum of research activities. The path toward engagement will not be uniform across every research program, but this taxonomy offers a common starting point and a flexible approach. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 54% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 8% |
| Austria | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 69% |
| Scientists | 2 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 371 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 8 | 2% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 360 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 62 | 17% |
| Researcher | 52 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 39 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 24 | 6% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 20 | 5% |
| Other | 84 | 23% |
| Unknown | 90 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 91 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 38 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 34 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 19 | 5% |
| Psychology | 10 | 3% |
| Other | 59 | 16% |
| Unknown | 120 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 23 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,788,818
of 24,717,821 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,385
of 8,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,120
of 165,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#14
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,717,821 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 165,421 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 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.