↓ Skip to main content

How to talk to strangers: facilitating knowledge sharing within translational health teams with the Toolbox dialogue method

Overview of attention for article published in Translational Behavioral Medicine, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
How to talk to strangers: facilitating knowledge sharing within translational health teams with the Toolbox dialogue method
Published in
Translational Behavioral Medicine, September 2012
DOI 10.1007/s13142-012-0171-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lynn M Schnapp, Liela Rotschy, Troy E Hall, Stephen Crowley, Michael O'Rourke

Abstract

Translational behavioral medicine involves experts from different disciplines and professions interacting to solve complex problems. Coordinating this expertise can be frustrated by the partially tacit nature of expertise and by the various ways in which it manifests in different communities. We describe a method-the Toolbox dialogue method-for addressing these challenges by means of a structured dialogue among team members concerning their respective approaches to complex problems. The Toolbox dialogue method consists of a philosophically grounded questionnaire-the "Toolbox"-deployed in workshops by collaborators from different disciplines and professions. The Health Science Toolbox was modified from an extensively utilized questionnaire designed for Science-Technology-Engineering-Mathematics (STEM) research and has been piloted with translational medicine teams. Eighty-five percent of participants in STEM workshops indicated a positive impact on awareness of the knowledge, opinions, or scientific approach of teammates. In the Health Science Toolbox, 35 % of questionnaire responses changed substantially from pre- to post-workshop, demonstrating impact of the workshops. The Toolbox dialogue method is a relatively brief workshop encounter that can have a positive impact on mutual understanding within translational medicine teams.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 7%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 51 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 7 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 16 29%
Philosophy 6 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Environmental Science 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 10 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 01 January 2015.
All research outputs
#2,385,435
of 22,679,690 outputs
Outputs from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#154
of 988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,068
of 172,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#1
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,679,690 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 172,058 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 90% of its contemporaries.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.