↓ Skip to main content

The role of organizational context in moderating the effect of research use on pain outcomes in hospitalized children: a cross sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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 role of organizational context in moderating the effect of research use on pain outcomes in hospitalized children: a cross sectional study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2029-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janet Yamada, Janet E. Squires, Carole A. Estabrooks, Charles Victor, Bonnie Stevens, CIHR Team in Children’s Pain

Abstract

Despite substantial research on pediatric pain assessment and management, health care professionals do not adequately incorporate this knowledge into clinical practice. Organizational context (work environment) is a significant factor in influencing outcomes; however, the nature of the mechanisms are relatively unknown. The objective of this study was to assess how organizational context moderates the effect of research use and pain outcomes in hospitalized children. A cross-sectional survey was undertaken with 779 nurses in 32 patient care units in 8 Canadian pediatric hospitals, following implementation of a multifaceted knowledge translation intervention, Evidence-based Practice for Improving Quality (EPIQ). The influence of organizational context was assessed in relation to pain process (assessment and management) and clinical (pain intensity) outcomes. Organizational context was measured using the Alberta Context Tool that includes: leadership, culture, evaluation, social capital, informal interactions, formal interactions, structural and electronic resources, and organizational slack (staff, space, and time). Marginal modeling estimated the effects of instrumental research use (direct use of research knowledge) and conceptual research use (indirect use of research knowledge) on pain outcomes while examining the effects of context. Six of the 10 organizational context factors (culture, social capital, informal interactions, resources, and organizational slack [space and time]) significantly moderated the effect of instrumental research use on pain assessment; four factors (culture, social capital, resources and organizational slack time) moderated the effect of conceptual research use and pain assessment. Only two factors (evaluation and formal interactions) moderated the effect of instrumental research use on pain management. All organizational factors except slack space significantly moderated the effect of instrumental research use on pain intensity; informal interactions and organizational slack space moderated the effect of conceptual research use and pain intensity. Many aspects of organizational context consistently moderated the effects of instrumental research use on pain assessment and pain intensity, while only a few influenced conceptual use of research on pain outcomes. Organizational context factors did not generally influence the effect of research use on pain management. Further research is required to further explore the relationships between organizational context and pain management outcomes.

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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Unknown 115 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Master 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 42 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 22 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 15%
Psychology 9 8%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 47 41%
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 30 January 2017.
All research outputs
#18,529,032
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,518
of 7,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#309,627
of 419,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#115
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 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 7,682 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. 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 419,069 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 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.