↓ Skip to main content

Team Science Approach to Developing Consensus on Research Good Practices for Practice‐Based Research Networks: A Case Study

Overview of attention for article published in CTS: Clinical & Translational Science, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
51 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.
Article details
Title
Team Science Approach to Developing Consensus on Research Good Practices for Practice‐Based Research Networks: A Case Study
Published in
CTS: Clinical & Translational Science, November 2015
DOI 10.1111/cts.12363
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Using peer learning strategies, seven experienced PBRNs working in collaborative teams articulated procedures for PBRN Research Good Practices (PRGPs). The PRGPs is a PBRN-specific resource to facilitate PBRN management and staff training, to promote adherence to study protocols, and to increase validity and generalizability of study findings. This paper describes the team science processes which culminated in the PRGPs. Skilled facilitators used team science strategies and methods from the Technology of Participation (ToP®), and the Consensus Workshop Method to support teams to codify diverse research expertise in practice-based research. The participatory nature of "sense-making" moved through identifiable stages. Lessons learned include (1) team input into the scope of the final outcome proved vital to project relevance; (2) PBRNs with diverse domains of research expertise contributed broad knowledge on each topic; and (3) ToP® structured facilitation techniques were critical for establishing trust and clarifying the "sense-making" process. Clin Trans Sci 2015; Volume #: 1-6.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 22%
Student > Master 6 12%
Other 5 10%
Librarian 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 10 20%
Psychology 6 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 12 24%
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 15 September 2021.
All research outputs
#22,314,961
of 34,363,559 outputs
Outputs from CTS: Clinical & Translational Science
#773
of 1,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266,066
of 440,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CTS: Clinical & Translational Science
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,363,559 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,417 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 440,946 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.