↓ Skip to main content

The development, design, testing, refinement, simulation and application of an evaluation framework for communities of practice and social-professional networks

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The development, design, testing, refinement, simulation and application of an evaluation framework for communities of practice and social-professional networks
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2009
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-9-162
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey Braithwaite, Johanna I Westbrook, Geetha Ranmuthugala, Frances Cunningham, Jennifer Plumb, Janice Wiley, Dianne Ball, Sue Huckson, Cliff Hughes, Brian Johnston, Joanne Callen, Nerida Creswick, Andrew Georgiou, Luc Betbeder-Matibet, Deborah Debono

Abstract

Communities of practice and social-professional networks are generally considered to enhance workplace experience and enable organizational success. However, despite the remarkable growth in interest in the role of collaborating structures in a range of industries, there is a paucity of empirical research to support this view. Nor is there a convincing model for their systematic evaluation, despite the significant potential benefits in answering the core question: how well do groups of professionals work together and how could they be organised to work together more effectively? This research project will produce a rigorous evaluation methodology and deliver supporting tools for the benefit of researchers, policymakers, practitioners and consumers within the health system and other sectors. Given the prevalence and importance of communities of practice and social networks, and the extent of investments in them, this project represents a scientific innovation of national and international significance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Netherlands 2 1%
Canada 2 1%
Spain 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 150 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 18%
Researcher 27 17%
Student > Master 22 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 10%
Other 11 7%
Other 32 20%
Unknown 24 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 22%
Social Sciences 25 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 7%
Computer Science 11 7%
Other 42 26%
Unknown 25 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 April 2012.
All research outputs
#18,305,773
of 22,664,644 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,427
of 7,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,386
of 92,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#16
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,644 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 92,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.