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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Factors influencing trust and mistrust in health promotion partnerships
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Global Health Promotion, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1177/1757975916656364 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jacky Jones, Margaret M. Barry |
| Abstract |
Partnerships between sectors can achieve better outcomes than can be achieved by individual partners working alone. Trust is necessary for partnerships to function effectively. Mistrust makes partnership working difficult, if not impossible. There has been little research into partnership functioning factors that influence trust and mistrust. This study aimed to identify these factors in health promotion partnerships. Data were collected from 337 partners in 40 health promotion partnerships using a postal survey. The questionnaire incorporated multi-dimensional scales designed to assess the contribution of factors that influence partnership trust and mistrust. Newly validated scales were developed for trust, mistrust and power. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify the significance of each factor to partnership trust and mistrust. Power was found to be the only predictor of partnership trust. Power, leadership, and efficiency were the most important factors influencing partnership mistrust. Power in partnerships must be shared or partners will not trust each other. Power-sharing and trust-building mechanisms need to be built into partnerships from the beginning and sustained throughout the collaborative process. |
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 Kingdom | 3 | 23% |
| France | 1 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 62% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 38% |
| Scientists | 4 | 31% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 23% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 22 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 10% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 24 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 27 September 2023.
All research outputs
#3,364,887
of 24,541,341 outputs
Outputs from Global Health Promotion
#104
of 799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,414
of 373,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Global Health Promotion
#6
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,541,341 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 799 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 373,097 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 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.