↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Developing research management and governance capacity in primary care organizations: transferable learning from a qualitative evaluation of UK pilot sites
Published in
Family Practice, February 2004
DOI 10.1093/fampra/cmh120
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The capacity and capabilities for undertaking primary care research have increased both within and outside of the UK in recent years. The UK Department of Health aims to facilitate this further by establishing a national network of primary care organizations (PCOs) ready to act as hosts for shared research governance systems. However, it is unclear which models offer the most effective option. In addition, there is confusion over new processes and concern that researchers may be deterred from addressing important questions. The research ascertains how PCOs selected as pilot sites have organized research management and governance (RM&G). We adopted a case study approach involving interviews with key informants in a purposive sample of eight pilot PCO (RM&G) sites. Motivating factors for PCOs to host RM&G included the possibility of additional resources and more effective use of research to improve service delivery. A range of organizational models were adopted, often reflecting existing strategic alliances. It is envisaged that it will not be effective or cost-effective for many PCOs to make individual arrangements for RM&G, and so models are already developing among groups of PCOs and partner organizations. The extent of partnerships between PCOs varied with concern over critical mass and dilution of expertise in larger groupings. The development and implementation of systems in pilot sites was facilitated by the support of the wider PCO in recognizing research as a valued and integral part of the organization; the effective management of relationships and the establishment of equal partnership arrangements for RM&G, and the effective use of existing R&D infrastructure and expertise. RM&G partnerships vary according to local circumstances. It is likely that groupings will develop in the future with increasing co-terminosity and across wider health organization boundaries, such as Strategic Heath Authorities (in the UK) or primary care research networks. Critical mass of RM&G arrangements is likely to be linked to levels of research activity. There are real concerns over the levels of bureaucracy associated with the implementation of research governance; however, those PCOs that develop as RM&G sites have the opportunity to enrich their organizations and expand clinically relevant R&D. Partnership working within PCOs and with primary care research networks, academic departments or acute trusts, may be the key to success. Those undertaking research within primary care settings outside of the UK can learn important lessons from the UK experience and ensure development of high quality research that informs improvements in patient care.

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 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 %
Sierra Leone 1 2%
Unknown 62 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Master 7 11%
Professor 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 13 21%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 21%
Social Sciences 11 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 10%
Psychology 4 6%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 13 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 07 October 2026.
All research outputs
#8,978,899
of 26,544,284 outputs
Outputs from Family Practice
#1,001
of 2,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,423
of 149,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Family Practice
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,544,284 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,211 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 149,899 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.